Woods v. State Employees Retirement System
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Schweiker v. HansenSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Leis v. FlyntSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Eaton v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- People v. LittleMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
- People v. BerkeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.