P.J., and O’CONNELL, J., concurred with MURRAY, J. 1 The DOC also argued that plaintiffs failure to verify the complaint and failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of MCL 600.5507(2) as set forth in the prison litigation reform act, MCL 600.5501 et seq., each independently warranted dismissal. The court ultimately rejected the former argument, while the DOC voluntarily withdrew the latter. 2 This Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s jurisdictional challenge. Rusha v Dep’t of Corrections, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 29, 2014 (Docket No. 317693). 3 Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on an unpublished decision of this Court for the proposition that statutory notice requirements are inapplicable where constitutional t 446, 451; 212 NW 207 (1927) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 6 See Price Paper Corp v
holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action holding that to the extent the constitutional provision permitting cities to acquire parks without their corporate limits comprehends the right of acquisition by eminent domain see 1908 const art 8  22 the provision is not selfexecuting as it merely lays down a general principle  holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision holding a nexus to the united states is not required and noting the venue provision comports with us const art iii  2 cl 3