MAYOR OF DETROIT and City of Detroit, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN and Department of Management and Budget, Defendants-Appellants.
JUDICIAL ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION and Governmental Administrators Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, John Engler, Governor of Michigan, and Frank Kelley, Attorney General, Defendants-Cross-Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees and
County of Wayne and Wayne County Board of Commissioners, Defendants/Cross-Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted September 2, 1997, at Detroit.
Decided March 3, 1998, at 9:15 a.m.
Released for Publication June 8, 1998.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
City of Detroit Law Dept. by Phyllis A. James, Corporation Counsel, Joanne D. Stafford, Chief Asst. Corporation Counsel, and Dennis A. Mazurek, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, Detroit, and Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman by Peter H. Ellsworth, Joseph C. Marshall, III, and Jeffery V. Stuckey, Lansing, for Mayor of City of Detroit and City of Detroit.
Gregory, Moore, Jeakle, Heinen, Ellison & Brooks, P.C. by Mark L. Heinen, Detroit, for Government Administrators Ass'n.
Lee R. Franklin, Detroit, for Judicial Attys. Ass'n.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Deborah A. Devine, Margaret Bartindale, Gary P. Gordon, and Thomas C. Nelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for State of Michigan, Dept. of Management and Budget, Governor of Michigan, and Atty. Gen.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Corporation Counsel, William S. Noakes, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and John C. Burchett and Harnetha W. Jarrett, Detroit, for Wayne County and Wayne County Board of Commissioners.
Before MARKMAN, P.J., and McDONALD and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
McDONALD, Judge.
These cases present three challenges to 1996 P.A. 374.1 Plaintiffs first contend that Act 374 violates Const. 1963, art. 9,§§ 25 and 29 (the Headlee Amendments).2 Plaintiffs next contend that Act 374 violates Const. 1963, art. 3, § 2 (the Separation of Powers Clause). Finally, plaintiffs contend that Act 374 violates the public employment...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
