Elliott’s Amusements, LLC v. Garrison Digest No. 17.23 Section 421.44 Cite as: Elliott’s Amusements, LLC v Garrison, unpublished opinion of the Ingham County Circuit Court, issued October 1, 2007 (Docket No. 07-251-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Ronald L. Garrison Employer: Elliott’s Amusements, LLC Date of decision: October 1, 2007 View/download the full decision HOLDING: Certain… Read More »
Jackson v. General Motors Corp Digest no. 4.31 Sections 44, 48 Cite as: Jackson v General Motors Corp, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, No. 01-119168-AE (July 8, 2002), lv den No. 242842 (Mich App January 13, 2003). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Willie Jackson, Jr., et al. Employer: General Motors Corporation Docket no.: MUL1999-57622 et al 154957… Read More »
Fletcher v Atrex Corp Digest no. 4.29 Sections 48, 44 Cite as: Fletcher v Atrex Corp, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued October 22, 1997 (Docket No. 96-7137-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimants: Clare Fletcher Employer: Color Custom Compounding, Inc., d/b/a Atrex Corporation Docket no.: FSC 95-00061-136470W Date of decision: October 22, 1997 View/download the full decision… Read More »
Smith v Hayes Albion Digest no. 4.27 Section 48 Cite as: Smith v Hayes Albion, 214 Mich App 82 (1995); lv den 453 Mich 912 (1996). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Bernard Smith, et al. Employer: Hayes Albion Docket no.: B86-11358-111657, et al. Date of decision: October 20, 1995 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where collective… Read More »
Vanderlaan v Tri-County Community Hospital Digest no. 4.25 Section 48(2) Cite as: Vanderlaan v Tri-County Community Hosp, 209 Mich App 328 (1995). Appeal pending: No Claimant: James Vanderlaan Employer: Tri-County Community Hospital Docket no.: B91-00104-117753 Date of decision: March 20, 1995 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The MES Act does not require a contractual right to… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Receipt of a lump sum settlement of an arbitration award constituted back pay and hence remuneration within the meaning of the MES Act.
Van Wormer Industries v MESC Digest no. 4.03 Section 48 Cite as: Van Wormer Industries v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Macomb Circuit Court, issued February 28, 1985 (Docket No. 84-2768 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Jerry L. McCullough Employer: Van Wormer Industries Docket no.: B83 21674 96043W Date of decision: February 28, 1985 View/download the full decision… Read More »
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Payments made to claimant after his separation and after he stopped performing services were severance pay, in light of the fact both parties characterized them as such and claimant had no right to payment in lieu of notice.
Tenneco Inc v MESC Digest no. 4.14 Section 48 Cite as: Tenneco Inc v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Jackson Circuit Court, issued December 30, 1983 (Docket No. 82-29572 AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: John J. Brieger Employer: Tenneco, Inc. – Walker Mfg. Docket no.: B80 23129 RO1 76344 Date of decision: December 30, 1983 View/download the full… Read More »
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The distinction in Section 44(5)(a) and (c) of the MES Act as to the treatment of disability payments as wages depending on whether the disability benefits are paid directly to an employee or through a disability plan does not constitute a denial of equal protection.