Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Sokolek v. General Motors Corp.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided August 22, 1995No. Docket Nos. 100072, 95551, 97960, 97961, (Calendar Nos. 13-14)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBoyle, J.
I agree with part m of the lead opinion, but *148I would not reject the procedural/substantive inquiry in determining the effect of amendments of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. MCL 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237(101) et seq. Today, the lead opinion, virtually without comment or analysis, adopts an approach we have repeatedly rejected when addressing other amendments of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. See, generally, Franks v White Pine Copper Div, 422 Mich 636, 678; 375 NW2d 715 (1985) (Levin, J., dissenting); Hurd v Ford Motor Co, 423 Mich 531, 536; 337 NW2d 300 (1985) (Levin,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Franks v. White Pine Copper DivisionMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Selk v. Detroit Plastic ProductsMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
- Hurd v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Kushay v. Sexton Dairy Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
- White v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.