ROBERT DAVIS V MARILYN WHEELER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT DAVIS,
UNPUBLISHED
March 17, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 288016
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-116537-AW
MARILYN WHEELER,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JAMILLE EDWARDS, BRENDA EPPERSON,
BLANCHE MCCLARY, HIGHLAND PARK
SCHOOL DISTRICT and JOYCE WATKINS,
Defendants.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Borrello and Stephens, JJ.
BORRELLO, J. (dissenting):
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant’s ouster from the Highland Park
Board of Education was mandated by MCL 600.4515 to be permanent. However, I disagree with
the majority’s conclusion that MCL 600.4515 does not preclude the Board from appointing
defendant to the very same office after her ouster. As the majority correctly observes, if the
language of a statute is unambiguous, then we assume that the Legislature intended its plain
meaning, and the statute must be enforced as written. Alvan Motor Freight, Inc v Dep’t of
Treasury, 281 Mich App 35, 39; ___ NW2d ___ (2008). In this case, the plain language of the
statute requires that “defendant be ousted and altogether excluded from that office[.]” The words
“ousted and altogether excluded” are plain and unambiguous and unequivocally require
permanent exclusion from the office for which an individual was ousted under MCL 600.4515.
The words “that office” refer to the specific Board seat that defendant was elected to on May 8,
2007. While I would agree that the statute would not prevent defendant from being elected or
appointed to the Board at some future date, in my view, the statute clearly prohibits the Board
from appointing defendant to the particular seat for which she was elected on May 8, 2007, and
from which she was ousted. In my view, the majority’s conclusion that “no part of MCL
600.4515 prohibits the Board from appointing defendant after her removal” is contrary to the
plain language of the statute.
-1-
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
