Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 2008No. Docket 131463Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.

I concur in the majority’s decision to remand this case to the circuit court for a clear determination of whether the city of Detroit’s reorganization plan violates § 13 of Act 312. The remand is necessary because the circuit court stated its conclusions in terms that are too tentative.

The circuit court must determine whether the union is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that a status quo violation occurred. If it finds such a likelihood, it may presume that the union will be irreparably harmed should the violation not be enjoined for the duration of the arbitration proceedings.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad v. United Transportation UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. People v. McIntireMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions v. Civil Service CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v. City of PontiacMichigan Supreme Court · 2008

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