Mr. Vander Ark is correct that I quoted the Chief Justice in my discussion of the Progressive Insurance case here, and I did not quote Justice Markman's concurrence.  So what?

OK, "so what."  Justice Markman, in shyster lingo, b!tch-slapped Justice Young for being an overboard a$$hole with his politicking shots on Justice Markey.  Like someone that had $500k in their war chest didn't know that the old broad was done and Oakland County wasn't already pushing their next heir apparent.  GMAFB.  That is why all this crap is still being discussed today.  The MI-GOP is as corrupt as the MDP.  For that you can see Bolgergate v Fake Tea Party.

Does that somehow delegitimize the point I was making?

Nope.  Just an omission that gets passed through the grapevine, that at the other end, becomes a larger than life "legitimization".  Ya, this ain't bean bag, Wiz.  We all get that.

Am I under some obligation to quote Justice Markman?

Hell no.  Everyone knows in the snake-pit of litigation jihad that there is two stories, and somewhere within is the truth.  Duh?

If so, am I also obligated to quote Justice Marilyn Kelly, who sided with Markey's opinion?

Probably not a good idea to include that if one is going to carry on a fap fest for the "unimpeachable" judgy-wudgy.

Probably also not a good idea to state that Ken Ross's department f#@%ed up with approving the use of the forms either.  That would look bad for the shysters in state regulatory too.  Not to mention the elected shysters and their staff of shysters that wrote the poorly written law.

The fun part of it is that one could even lawyerball that 'ol insurance money Young got his jolly's with stuffing it to Lefty Peter Lewis.