Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stone v. State

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided December 12, 2001No. Docket 217485Published

1DissentCollins, J.

I respectfully dissent. As I read the plain language of MCL 38.19f(3), that subsection constitutes a condition that retirement system members accept if they accept the state’s offer of early retirement under the sera. I do not agree that *532the requirement in MCL 38.19f(3) that payment for accrued sick leave be made in monthly installments, rather than in a lump sum as would normally occur under the Michigan Civil Service Commission (MCSC) compensation plan and MCSC rules, converted the payments for accumulated sick leave into a tax-exempt retirement benefit under MCL 38.40(1).

While I…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Adrian School District v. Michigan Public School Employees' Retirement SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  2. City of Detroit v. Detroit Commercial CollegeMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Advo-Systems, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. Howard v. Clinton Charter TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. Alma Piston Co. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999

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