Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.
I agree with the result the majority reaches in Mudel.
I dissent from the majority’s decision in Connaway and would reverse the holdings of both the Court of Appeals and the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission in that case. The wcac exceeded its authority, reversing the decision of the magistrate that was based on competent, material and substantial evidence on the entire record. MCL 418.861a(3); MSA 17.237(861a)(3), MCL 418.861a(14); MSA 17.237(861a)(14), Holden v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich 257, 269; 484 NW2d 227 (1992).
I write, also, to register my strong disagreement with the majority’s…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. GravesMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Cardinal Mooney High School v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Holden v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
- Dressler v. Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1978
- Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.