Drouillard v. City of Roseville, Docket No. 2213
| Decision Date | 08 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 2213,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | Harold A. DROUILLARD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a Michigan municipal corporation, and the City of Roseville Police and Fire Civil Service Commission, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Peters et al., Intervening Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Kenneth F. Martin, Butler & Martin, Roseville, for appellants.
William B. Ward, Roseville, for City of Roseville and City of Roseville Police and Fire Civil Service Comm.
Craigen J. Oster, Soma & Oster, Mt. Clemens, for intervenors.
Before T. G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and LEVIN and SULLIVAN, * JJ.
Plaintiffs, members of the Roseville police force took a promotional examination for the position of sergeant in the department. They failed to pass the examination and brought suit to determine that the examination as given was illegal as not conforming to the requirements of the civil service act** and asked that promotions based on that examination be permanently enjoined.
The plaintiffs assert the examination was faulty in the following particulars:
(1) The notice required by the act was not given.
(2) The accommodations for the examination were not suitable as required by the act.
(3) The scope of the examination was too broad in violation of the act's requirements.
(4) The secrecy provisions of a civil service commission resolution were not observed.
They assert that when they petitioned the civil service commission for a new examination based on these complaints, the commission ignored their request and certified the results of the examination.
The defendants denied that the notice required was not given; denied the accommodations were unsuitable; and denied the scope was improper.
They further maintained that these matters were all within the discretion of the civil service commission and were not reviewable by the court in a suit for a declaration of rights.
Accordingly they moved for accelerated judgment under GCR 1963, 116 on the basis that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, and for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117 on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which the relief sought could be granted.
The court elected to treat the suit 'in the nature of superintending control' and on the pleadings, depositions, and answers to interrogatories, resolved the factual issues in favor of the defendants, and summarily dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint.
On appeal the appellants claim the court should not have resolved disputed factual issues without an evidentiary hearing.
The appellees assert the court was correct in doing so because of the following stipulation of the parties:
'It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties herein through their respective counsel, that the court in considering the defendants' motion for accelerated judgment may have recourse to all of the pleadings, interrogatories and depositions presently on file with the court and may consider all of the above in making their (sic) determination as to whether the plaintiffs have stated their cause of action.'
It has not been disputed that, as plaintiffs contend, they attempted unsuccessfully to have a hearing on their complaints before the civil service commission. The failure to have such a hearing cannot be charged to plaintiffs.
Since there was no hearing before the civil service commission, the trial judge erred in treating plaintiffs' plenary suit as one for superintending control. Superintending control replaces certiorari (GCR 1963, 711.3) but the scope of review thereon has not changed. Indian Village Manor Company v. City of Detroit (1967), 5 Mich.App. 679, 147 N.W.2d 731. The circuit court in exercising superintending control to review the action of another tribunal must decide on the record made below. In re Fredericks (1938), 285 Mich....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne, In re, Docket No. 94486
...413 N.W.2d 413. Unification of the writs under superintending control did not change the scope of review. 6 Drouillard v. Roseville, 9 Mich.App. 239, 243, 156 N.W.2d 628 (1967); Scallen v. State Health Comm'r, 376 Mich. 64, 71, 135 N.W.2d 426 (1965) (Souris, J., dissenting). Instead, the pu......
-
Harrison v. Arrow Metal Products Corp., AFL-CIO
...judgment under GCR 1963, 117, and may not be made by motion for accelerated judgment under GCR 1963, 116, Drouillard v. City of Roseville (1967), 9 Mich.App. 239, 156 N.W.2d 628, no opinion can be expressed as to whether plaintiff sufficiently alleged bad faith, arbitrary action, or fraud o......
-
American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Barry
...also points out, correctly, that it was improper to dispose of this case by accelerated judgment. GCR 1963, 116; Drouillard v. Roseville, 9 Mich.App. 239, 156 N.W.2d 628 (1967). Summary judgment was the proper way to proceed. GCR 1963, 117; Pompey v. General Motors Corp., 385 Mich. 537, 189......
-
People v. Mason, Docket Nos. 9627
...to questions of law. Scallen v. State Health Commissioner (1965), 376 Mich. 64, 71, 135 N.W.2d 426; Drouillard v. City of Roseville (1967), 9 Mich.App. 239, 243, 156 N.W.2d 628; Indian Village Manor Co. v. Detroit (1967), 5 Mich.App. 679, 685, 147 N.W.2d 731. The scope of review upon such a......