Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smigel v. Southgate Community School District

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1972No. 50 June Term 1971, Docket No. 53,008Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilliams, J.

I concur in part with and dissent in part from the opinions of Chief Justice T. M. Kavanagh, Justice T. E. Brennan and Justice Swain-son. I concur in reversal and remand.

On the question of court jurisdiction vis-a-vis MERC to construe the pertinent statutes, I agree *544with what the Chief Justice and Justice Swainson wrote that the Court has such jurisdiction.

On the question whether PERA § 10 permits an "agency shop,” I agree with the Chief Justice and Justice T. E. Brennan that it does not. This is because PERA fails to include a savings clause for union security such as § 14 in private…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  3. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
  4. Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Smith v. Evening News Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962

34 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