Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Parks v. Employment Security Commission
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 26, 1986No. Docket Nos. 73010, 75474, 75964, (Calendar Nos. 11-13)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, J.
The common issue presented in these consolidated appeals concerns the construction and application of § 29(l)(a) of the Michigan Employment Security Act. Additionally, in Lindquist, the application of § 29(l)(b) is implicated, and in Parks, an independent constitutional question is raised.
I concur in the result of Justice Brickley’s opinion in Dolce and Lindquist. I respectfully dissent in Parks.
i
The first two disqualification provisions enumerated in § 29 of the Employment Security Act provide:(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits in the following cases in which the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Abood v. Detroit Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station EmployesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. HudsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Nottelson v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.