People v. PAILLE 1
This text of 178 N.W.2d 469 (People v. PAILLE 1) 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.
Opinions
I cannot agree that the amendment of the Recorder’s Court act by PA 1919, No 369 (MCLA § 725.1 et seq. [Stat Ann 1962 Rev and 1970 Cum Supp § 27.3941 et seq.]) gave rise to a new function in Recorder’s Court to which the pre-existing restriction on review by another judge (LA 1883, No 326, Ch XII, § 2, as amended by LA 1893, No 408 [CL 1948, § 726.2 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3552)]) could not have application.
It gave rise to a new function all right, but there is no reason to suppose that the legislature did not fully intend to vest that new function in a court whose judges were statutorily prohibited from reviewing each others decisions.
Whatever intra-court battles occasioned the adoption of the restriction upon intra-court review, the wisdom of preventing judges of equal station from overruling each other abides. And, the rationale applies especially to the split-level jurisdiction of Recorder’s Court.
I would vote to reverse, and in the light of the delay already experienced in this criminal prosecution, I would, under our superintending authority, remand this cause to the circuit court for Wayne County to hear and rule upon the prosecutor’s motion to remand to the magistrate.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
178 N.W.2d 469, 383 Mich. 605, 1970 Mich. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paille-1-mich-1970.