Ameritech Mich. v. PSC (In re MCI) - 460 Mich. 396, 596 N.W.2d 164 (1999)

Rule:

The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. The first step in that determination is to review the language of the statute itself. If the statute is unambiguous on its face, the Legislature will be presumed to have intended the meaning expressed, and judicial construction is neither required nor permissible. Should a statute be ambiguous on its face, however, so that reasonable minds could differ with respect to its meaning, judicial construction is appropriate to determine the meaning. 

Facts:

Appellant telecommunication company filed a complaint, alleging that appellee local carrier violated provisions of the Michigan Telecommunications Act (MTA), Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2101 et seq. (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 22.1469(101) et seq.), by failing to make intraLATA toll dialing available to appellant. Appellee claimed it was not afforded the opportunity to compete in the intraLATA market. The Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) issued orders to compel appellee to provide intraLATA parity in the interest of the public. Appellant sought and obtained a writ of mandamus compelling appellee to abide by the PSC's orders, which was later reversed. 

Issue:

Was Ameritech required to provide "intraLATA toll dialing parity" in the absence of "interLATA relief"?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reinstated the orders of the PSC and the writ. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. The first step in that determination is to review the language of the statute itself. If the statute is unambiguous on its face, the Legislature will be presumed to have intended the meaning expressed, and judicial construction is neither required nor permissible. Should a statute be ambiguous on its face, however, so that reasonable minds could differ with respect to its meaning, judicial construction is appropriate to determine the meaning. The court held that under Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2312 (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 22.1469(312)), a local carrier, such as appellee, was required to provide intraLATA toll dialing if there were no intraLATA prohibitions and the service area had at least two telecommunications providers.