Fisher-New Center Co. v. Michigan State Tax Commission
| Decision Date | 05 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 7,FISHER-NEW,7 |
| Citation | 381 Mich. 713,167 N.W.2d 263 |
| Parties | CENTER COMPANY, Appellant, v. MICHIGAN STATE TAX COMMISSION, Appellee, and City of Detroit, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William D. Dexter, Richard R. Roesch, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for Michigan State Tax Commission.
Robert Reese, Corp. Counsel, Julius C. Pliskow, Arthur Yim, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for cross-appellant.
ON REHEARING
Upon this rehearing I remain persuaded, as I was when I joined in the opinion of Mr. Justice Souris on the original hearing, reported at 380 Mich. 340, 157 N.W.2d 271, that he was right in holding that the administrative procedures act * is applicable to State tax commission proceedings notwithstanding Dossin's Food Products, Inc. v. Michigan State Tax Commission (1960), 360 Mich. 312, 103 N.W.2d 474, that the act requires more than 'any evidence' or a 'scintilla' to sustain findings of fact made by administrative agencies, including the State tax commission, when such findings are subjected to judicial review; that he act and 1963 Michigan Constitution, art. 6, § 28, require that such agency findings and decisions must be supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record; that application of such requirements to the record of proceedings before the State tax commission in this case, as outlined and discussed in the Souris opinion, reveals that the commission findings are not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence, are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, and are contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence; that this constitutes an error of law; that such error presents a question for judicial determination and, upon judicial review, the constitutional grounds and requirement for reversal, under Michigan Constitution of 1963, art. 6, § 28, namely, error of law and adoption of wrong principles.
Accordingly, I would conclude this opinion in the concluding language of the Souris opinion, as follows:
'I agree with Justice Adams' opinion regarding the city of Detroit's cross-appeal.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooperative v. City of Ann Arbor
...forces.” Fisher–New Ctr. Co. v. State Tax Comm., 380 Mich. 340, 362, 157 N.W.2d 271 (1968), vacated on other grounds on reh. 381 Mich. 713, 167 N.W.2d 263 (1969). The measure of allowable obsolescence is a subjective determination that demands an exercise of judgment. Fisher–New Ctr., 380 M......
-
Edward Rose Bldg. Co. v. Independence Tp.
...632. See also Continental Cablevision v. Roseville, 430 Mich. 727, 735, 425 N.W.2d 53 (1988); Fisher-New Center Co. v. State Tax Comm. (On Rehearing), 381 Mich. 713, 167 N.W.2d 263 (1969). Despite this deferential standard of review, we conclude under the present circumstance that the Tax T......
-
CTY. OF WAYNE v. State Tax Comm'n
...In Fisher-New Ctr. Co. v. State Tax Comm., 380 Mich. 340, 369-370, 157 N.W.2d 271 (1968), rev'd on other grounds on reh 381 Mich. 713, 167 N.W.2d 263 (1969), the Supreme Court We agree with the tax commission that a uniform approach to valuation does not always result in uniform assessment.......
-
New Covert Generating Co. v. Twp. of Covert
...are not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. See Fisher-New Ctr. Co. v. Mich. State Tax Comm. (On Rehearing) , 381 Mich. 713, 715, 167 N.W.2d 263 (1969) ; Mich. Props. , 491 Mich. at 527-528, 817 N.W.2d 548. The nature of the review required under ......