Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chrysler Corp. v. Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 26, 1974No. Docket 14863-14868Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partV. J. Brennan, J.

Plaintiff, Chrysler Corporation, appeals a judgment of the circuit court ordering payment of "back-to-work” benefits to the six individual defendants. I would reverse as to defendants Washington and Greer and affirm as to defendants Clark, Turonek, Preston Williams, and John Williams.

For the reasons stated in General Motors Corp v Erves, 47 Mich App 591; 209 NW2d 713 (1973), I do not agree that MCLA 421.27(c)(2); MSA 17.529(c)(2) requires, for its application, a "period of unemployment”, as defined in MCLA 421.48; MSA 17.552, for more than three weeks. What is required is that there be a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. General Motors Corp. v. ErvesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API