Norris v. State, 28
| Decision Date | 06 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 28,28 |
| Citation | 70 N.W.2d 761,342 Mich. 378 |
| Parties | Charles G. NORRIS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE of Michigan and State Liquor Control Commission, Defendants and Appellants, and The Civil Service Commission, Defendant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Alexander, Cholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, Grand Rapids, Don V. Souter, Grand Rapids, of counsel, for plaintiff and appellee.
Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Russell A. Searl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Foss O. Eldred, Ionia, of counsel, for defendants and appellants.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is an appeal by the defendant liquor control commission from a judgment entered against it in the State court of claims for $901.29 in favor of plaintiff, for back pay claimed to be owing him as an employee of said commission. The defendant commission argues for reversal mainly on the ground that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine plaintiff's claim.
On January 9, 1952, defendant commission dismissed plaintiff, an employee. The dismissal was appealed to the civil service commission, which held a hearing on June 13, 1952, and rescinded the decision of its hearing board which had upheld the dismissal. The commission ordered that the dismissal from service be changed to a suspension effective from January 9 to June 28, 1952, and that the plaintiff serve a new probationary period. On October 31, 1952, the civil service commission, on rehearing, rescinded said order entered June 13 and ordered that the plaintiff be given an opportunity to resign his said position (liquor store clerk) and that the plaintiff 'be given back pay from the effective date of his suspension, minus any moneys earned in other than State employment.' On November 1, 1952, plaintiff tendered his resignation. Thereafter, during the course of his frequent demands for his back pay plaintiff was informed on December 9, 1952, by letter from the State personnel director of the civil service commission that it was intended that plaintiff be paid from the termination date of his suspension (June 28) to the date of his resignation, November 1. Obviously, this was not in accord with the order of the commission entered on October 31, to the effect that plaintiff be given opportunity to resign, and that he be given back pay 'from the effective date of his suspension.' On January 27, 1953, plaintiff was paid $216.71, covering the period from June 28 to November 1, the difference between his salary for that period and what he had received as an employee of Blodgett Memorial Hospital.
Thereupon plaintiff renewed his claim in the court of claims, for back pay from January 9 to June 28, 1952. On hearing, the circuit judge sitting in the court of claims gave plaintiff judgment for $901.29, from which the liquor control commission appeals. The amount is not in dispute.
Appellant's principal ground on which it seeks reversal is that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Section 8 of the court of claims act, C.L. 1948, § 691.108, Stat.Ann.1953 Cum.Supp. § 27.3548(8), provides:
'Except as provided in section 13 1 of this act, the jurisdiction of the court of claims as conferred upon it by this act over claims and demands against the state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies, shall be exclusive: * * * The court shall have power and jurisdiction:
'1. To hear and determine all claims and demands, liquidated and unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, against the state and any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms or agencies.
* * *
* * *
'The judgment entered by the court of claims upon any such claim, either against or in favor of the state or any department, commission, board, institution, arm or agency thereof, upon becoming final shall be res adjudicata of such claim.'
There is no dispute in this case as to the legality or the propriety of plaintiff's dismissal by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nummer v. Treasury Dept., 97343
...163 Cal.Rptr. 814 (1980); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Emde, 706 S.W.2d 543, 546 (Mo.App., 1986).19 See Norris v. Liquor Control Comm., 342 Mich. 378, 381, 70 N.W.2d 761 (1955).Even if Nummer could have asserted a claim for damages due to breach of enforceable promise and violation of ......
-
Doan v. Kellogg Community College, Docket No. 77-1198
...Taylor v. Auditor General, 360 Mich. 146, 103 N.W.2d 769 (1960); the State Liquor Control Commission, Norris v. Liquor Control Commission, 342 Mich. 378, 70 N.W.2d 761 (1955). State-supported colleges and universities are also within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. Sprik v. Regents......
-
Bays v. State, Director of Dept. of State Police, Docket No. 77-4243
...rules. Farrell [89 MICHAPP 361] v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 317 Mich. 676, 27 N.W.2d 135 (1947), Norris v. Liquor Control Comm., 342 Mich. 378, 70 N.W.2d 761 (1955). The instant plaintiffs were in effect asking the Court of Claims to exercise supervisory power over the Civil Service......
-
Lott v. Hirsch, 20
... ... to file security for costs for the reason that the plaintiff was a nonresident of this State. Reasonable opportunity was afforded to plaintiff to oppose the motions. Nothing was filed or ... ...