Legal Opinion
Ramey v. Michigan Public Service Commission
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 1941No. Docket No. 95, Calendar No. 41,219PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
I am not in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice BOYLES. The facts stated are correct except that plaintiffs did not file claims for additional vacation pay. The plaintiffs did not receive any vacation pay whatsoever.
Under the rules in force during the time plaintiffs earned their vacation with pay, they had two alternatives in regard to their annual leave allowances. They could take a vacation with pay each year for a period of two weeks or they could forego a vacation one year and take four weeks vacation with pay the following year. To protect this second alternative it was provided that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fisk v. Jefferson Police JurySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- City of Los Angeles v. OliverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Wylie v. City Commission of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Kennedy Coal Corp. v. Buckhorn Coal Corp.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1924
- Mississippi Ex Rel. Robertson v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Campbell v. Judges' Retirement BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
- Harryman v. Roseburg Rural Fire Protection DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- In Re Davis'estateMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
- Metropolitan Funeral System Ass'n v. Commissioner of InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
- Grant v. NelliusSupreme Court of Delaware · 1977
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.