Category Archives: 04. Total or Partial Unemployment

MES Act secs. 27(c), 44, 48

Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co – 4.07

Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co Digest no. 4.07 Section 48 Cite as: Weideman v Interlakes Engineering Co, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued November 28, 1975 (Docket No. 744941 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: William Weideman, et al. Employer: Interlakes Engineering Company Docket no.: B73 3107 43951, et al. Date of decision: November 28, 1975 View/download the… Read More »

Brown v LTV Aerospace Corp – 4.01

SUPREME COURT HOLDING: (1) A pro-rata vacation allowance at the time of layoff is not a termination allowance and may be considered as vacation pay. (2) Where claimants are not numerous enough to require a class action, and their consolidated appeal is filed in a circuit other than Ingham, the appeal must be dismissed as to any claimant not residing in the circuit of filing.

MESC v Vulcan Forging Co – 4.22

MESC v Vulcan Forging Co Digest no. 4.22 Section 48 Cite as: MESC v Vulcan Forging Co, 375 Mich 374 (1965). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Henry Czarnata Employer: Vulcan Forging Company Docket no.: B58 2338 21038 Date of decision: May 10, 1965 View/download the full decision SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Claimants who were on unpaid vacation pursuant to a collective… Read More »

Renown Stove Co v UCC – 4.21

Renown Stove Co v UCC Digest no. 4.21 Section 48 Cite as: Renown Stove Co v UCC, 328 Mich 436 (1950). Appeal pending: No Claimant: George Sheldon, et al. Employer: Renown Stove Company Docket no.: B8 5900 1 9580 Date of decision: September 11, 1950 View/download the full decision MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Where the option to… Read More »

Phillips v UCC – 4.04

Phillips v UCC Digest no. 4.04 Section 48 Cite as: Phillips v UCC, 323 Mich 188 (1948). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Pleasant I. Phillips Employer: Winters and Crampton Corporation Docket no.: B7 15029 8250 Date of decision: December 17, 1948 View/download the full decision SUPREME COURT HOLDING: (1) The claimant has the burden of proof as to eligibility. (2)… Read More »