Legal Opinion · Dissent

Woods v. State Employees Retirement System

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1992No. Docket 91967Published

1DissentLevin, J.

I would grant leave to appeal, and dissent from the peremptory reversal of the Court of Appeals.

I adhere to the view that peremptory reversal should be reserved for cases in which the law is settled and no factual assessment is required.* Peremptory disposition is not appropriate.

*83The Court of Appeals analyzed the question presented as follows:

The term "employee” is defined in section (1)(y) of the act as "a person who may become eligible for membership under this act, as provided in § 13, if the person’s compensation is paid in whole or in part by the State.” In section (1)(e), a member is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Schweiker v. HansenSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Leis v. FlyntSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Eaton v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. People v. LittleMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  5. People v. BerkeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1991

4 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