Kaminskas v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 24000
Decision Date | 06 April 1976 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 24000 |
Citation | 68 Mich.App. 499,243 N.W.2d 25 |
Parties | Carol KAMINSKAS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF DETROIT, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
David N. Walsh, Birmingham, for plaintiffs-appellants.
City of Detroit Corporation Counsel, by Victor G. Marocco, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and MAHER and BRITTEN, JJ.
Plaintiff Kaminskas, a taxpayer of the City of Detroit, and plaintiff associations, unions allegedly representing city employees who are residents, taxpayers and voters in the City of Detroit, filed a complaint against the City of Detroit, the Detroit Civil Service Commission, the Mayor of Detroit, and the Detroit City Council in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs had alleged no personal harm and hence had no standing to sue. Plaintiffs appeal this decision as of right. We affirm.
The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the city charter had been violated by the hiring of provisional employees and also sought an injunction against further violations of the charter. The plaintiffs claimed that the Civil Service Commission had authorized the hiring of provisional employees contrary to the civil service examination system mandated by the charter. The complaint alleged 'harm and detriment of the employees who could seek advancement and the voting taxpayer who has a right to expect compliance with the charter and the opportunity for employment'. In short, damage to present and prospective employees and voting taxpayers was very generally pleaded. We must decide if present plaintiffs are the proper plaintiffs to advance these general claims and to contest the actions of defendants.
The action cannot be maintained as a taxpayers' suit. The action is clearly not a taxpayers' suit under GCR 1963, 201.2, M.C.L.A. § 600.2041(3); M.S.A. § 27A.2041(3), for there is no mention at all of the expenditure of state funds. Nor is the action a municipal taxpayers' suit. A municipal taxpayers' suit does not arise out of any specific statutory or court rule grant of standing to sue, but is a judicially sanctioned action whereby municipal taxpayers are allowed to challenge unlawful municipal acts that injure the plaintiffs as taxpayers. Menendez v. Detroit, 337 Mich. 476, 482, 60 N.W.2d 319, 323 (1953). Menendez requires that the plaintiff allege a particular kind of injury:
While there is some variance in Michigan case law concerning the character of quantum of taxpayer's loss that is required in the pleadings, 1 all cases we have surveyed require, as a minimum, a clear statement of present or prospective damages to taxpayers. The present complaint gave the trial court no indication of how the plaintiffs, as taxpayers, would be adversely affected by the defendants' policies of hiring provisional employees instead of civil service employees. The mere conclusion of 'harm and detriment to the taxpayer' without a description of the harm, is insufficient.
As was stated in Andrews v. South Haven, 187 Mich. 294, 304, 153 N.W. 827, 830 (1915):
Plaintiffs claim that if their suit does not qualify as a taxpayers' suit, they qualify as individuals, or as representatives of individuals, who have suffered damages and have cognizable grievances. Again, we disagree. Plaintiff Kaminskas makes no allegations that she has been wrongfully denied employment by the hiring of provisional employees. Plaintiff associations make no allegations that they are authorized to represent anyone who has been injured by the provisional hirings. All we find in the complaint are allegations of 'harm and detriment' to Some employees, not necessarily those represented by plaintiff associations. 2
Inasmuch as plaintiffs have failed to show any facts whereby they are injured or represent anyone injured, they lack standing. Inglis v. Public School Employees Retirement Board, 374 Mich. 10, 13, 131 N.W.2d 54 (1964).
Plaintiffs finally contend that that Detroit Charter, Article 6, ch. 5, § 6--515, allows them to maintain this action. The section, entitled 'Payrolls', reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 96430
...... of serious physical injury; risk of serious emotional distress; and harm to morale and efficiency of plaintiff DFFA's members.." See Kaminskas v. Detroit, 68 Mich.App. 499, 243 N.W.2d 25 (1976), in which the Court held that broad-gauge, conclusory, "inter alia" allegations, without ......
-
Shimkus v. Hickner, 04-10075-BC.
...of the contract bid at issue would bear the costs of the damages alleged, not the defendant. Ibid. (citing Kaminskas v. City of Detroit, 68 Mich.App. 499, 243 N.W.2d 25, 27 (1976)). The only plaintiff who alleges status as a taxpayer is Robert Shimkus. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 16. In his brief, ......
-
Michigan Paytel Joint Venture v. City of Detroit, 00-1516.
...Moreover, Noah failed to provide "a clear statement of present or prospective damages to taxpayers." Kaminskas v. City of Detroit, 68 Mich.App. 499, 243 N.W.2d 25, 27 (1976). Noah describes the harm as the costs incurred by the City when the DPD issued a second RFP and allowed Ameritech to ......
-
Rayford v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 74531
...319 (1953); Grand Rapids Independent Publishing Co. v. Grand Rapids, 335 Mich. 620, 56 N.W.2d 403 (1953), and Kaminskas v. Detroit, 68 Mich.App. 499, 243 N.W.2d 25 (1976), lv. den. 399 Mich. 826 (1977). Plaintiffs nowhere assert that their taxes will be increased or that as taxpayers they w......