Legal Opinion

Judicial Attorneys Ass'n v. State

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1999No. Docket Nos. 111785, 111786, Calendar Nos. 9, 5PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.

In these appeals, the city of Detroit and Wayne County challenge certain provisions of 1996 PA 374, a court reorganization act, on the basis that they violate Const 1963, art 9, § 29 (the Headlee Amendment). We conclude that Act 374 neither imposes new activities nor increases the level of activities on local units. Further, because in 1978 and under Act 374, the state’s only contribution to the activity at issue relates to the payment of judicial salaries, these matters are not subject to an analysis to determine whether Act 374 decreases the state’s proportionate share of the necessary…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. Wayne Circuit Judges v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Durant v. State Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Wayne Circuit Judges v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Judicial Attorneys Ass'n v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1998

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Adair v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Armstrong v. Ypsilanti Charter TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Hopkins v. Parole BoardMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. Adair v. State of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  5. In re Parole of HillMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012

25 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