Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Payne v. Muskegon

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 1994No. 94486, (Calendar No. 6)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, J.

Although I agree that defendant’s dismissal of plaintiff was valid and join part m of the lead opinion, because I find that the substantial evidence standard of Const 1963, art 6, § 28 is applicable in the instant case, I write separately.

i

At issue in the instant case is the applicable standard of review for a writ of superintending control directed at a municipal civil service commission. The lead opinion does not examine whether art 6, § 28 of the 1963 Constitution applies because it finds that "[rjeview in the nature of certiorari meets the requirements for review of certain administrative…

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Traverse City School Dist. v. Atty. Gen.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Genesee Prosecutor v. Genesee Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  3. McAvoy v. H B Sherman Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Michigan Employment Relations Commission v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Viculin v. Department of Civil ServiceMichigan Supreme Court · 1971

51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API