Legal Opinion

Walkling v. Smith

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1935No. Calendar 38,483PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I am not in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice BUSHNELL.

Plaintiff protested his discharge and was refused reinstatement by the governor because the position he had held was abolished. If the position held by plaintiff was abolished then he is not entitled to reinstatement. Smith v. Flint City Commission, 258 Mich. 698;Owen v. City of Detroit, 259 Mich. 176.

It is claimed in behalf of plaintiff that he was never legally transferred to the position of telephone inspector and, therefore, the abolishment of that position has no effect upon his rights.

Plaintiff claims that he had no knowledge…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. Flint City CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Owen v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jackson v. Detroit Police ChiefMichigan Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Cremer v. Alger County Road CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
  3. McManus v. Genesee County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Kunzig v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Kunzig v. Liquor Control CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1950

1 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