Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. State of Mi

Michigan Supreme Court

Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. State of Mi

874 N.W.2d 686, 499 Mich. 859

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 2016

Docket147511; Court of Appeals 304920

StatusPublished

This text of 874 N.W.2d 686 (Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. State of Mi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. State of Mi, 874 N.W.2d 686, 499 Mich. 859 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

By order of January 29,2014, *860 the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in UAW v Green (Docket No. 147700) and Mich Coalition of State Employee Unions v Michigan (Docket No. 147758). On order of the Court, the caseshaving been decided on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 282 (2015), and 498 Mich 312 (2015), respectively, the application is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order and shall include among the issues to be briefed whether, given that the Civil Service Commission has constitutional authority to “fix rates of compensation” for the classified service, Const 1963, art 11, § 5, and given that the relief the plaintiff requests is not available unless the Civil Service Commission reconsiders its rate-setting decision, is the plaintiffs breach of contract claim cognizable in the Court of Claims? The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Larsen, J.

Although I intend to participate in the forthcoming oral argument on the application for leave to appeal, I did not participate in the entry of this order because the Court considered the application before I assumed office and my vote is not outcome-determinative.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By order of January 29,2014, *860 the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in UAW v Green (Docket No. 147700) and Mich Coalition of State Employee Unions v Michigan (Docket No. 147758). On order of the Court, the caseshaving been decided on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 282 (2015), and 498 Mich 312 (2015), respectively, the application is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order and shall include among the issues to be briefed whether, given that the Civil Service Commission has constitutional authority to “fix rates of compensation” for the classified service, Const 1963, art 11, § 5, and given that the relief the plaintiff requests is not available unless the Civil Service Commission reconsiders its rate-setting decision, is the plaintiffs breach of contract claim cognizable in the Court of Claims? The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Larsen, J.

Although I intend to participate in the forthcoming oral argument on the application for leave to appeal, I did not participate in the entry of this order because the Court considered the application before I assumed office and my vote is not outcome-determinative.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 N.W.2d 686, 499 Mich. 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michigan-association-of-governmental-employees-v-state-of-mi-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack