Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lazarus v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 22, 1990No. Docket No. 113194Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partReilly, J.

I agree that plaintiff is entitled to sick leave payback benefits, but for reasons other than those stated by the majority. I respectfully dissent with respect to the majority’s opinion that plaintiff is entitled to payment of his hospitalization and medical insurance premiums.

Plaintiff voluntarily terminated his employment with the city at age forty-eight after twenty-eight years of service effective October 1, 1986. Plaintiff claims that, because he received a retirement allowance under the retirement plan provided in title IX, chapter VI, article VI, part A, § 1.4 of the 1918 City of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Clexton v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API