PropertyCivil Rights ActFree Exercise ClauseArticle 1, § 4vacaturremandrehearingconstitutional issue
Facts
The prior December 22, 1998 opinion had held that the Civil Rights Act does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1, § 4 of the Michigan Constitution. On rehearing, the court addressed that portion of its earlier decision. The opinion text provides no additional underlying factual details about the parties' dispute. The case was sent back to the Jackson Circuit Court to reconsider that constitutional issue.
Issue
Whether the court should leave in place its earlier holding that the Civil Rights Act does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, § 4 of the Michigan Constitution, or instead vacate that portion of the opinion and remand for further consideration.
Rule
When granting rehearing in part, the court may vacate a prior portion of its opinion addressing a constitutional question and remand the case to the trial court for further consideration of that issue and entry of an appropriate judgment.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
A state supreme court in Ohio issued an opinion in a property dispute between Lena Ortiz and Harbor Stone Rentals, a fictional landlord in Toledo. Months later, the court entered a short order stating that, in lieu of granting rehearing on the constitutional section of its opinion, that section was vacated and the case was remanded to the Lucas County trial court for further consideration of that issue and entry of an appropriate judgment.
What is the best characterization of the constitutional section of the earlier opinion after the later order?
Explanation. The governing rule is procedural: when the court vacates a prior portion of its opinion addressing a constitutional question and remands for further consideration of that issue, that earlier constitutional holding no longer governs the case. The majority opinion withdrew only that portion and returned the issue to the trial court for reconsideration and an appropriate judgment. (Derived from McCready v. Hoffius (n.d.).)