Prochazka v. Oak Park Developmental Training Center, 75401

• Decision Date: 13 May 1985
• Docket Number: No. 75401,75401
• Citation: 422 Mich. 886,368 N.W.2d 214
• Parties: Carolyn PROCHAZKA and John Prochazka, and John Prochazka as Next Friend of Janean Prochazka, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OAK PARK DEVELOPMENTAL TRAINING CENTER, a body politic, subdivision of the City of Oak Park, Dr. Clifford May and Irv Collins, Defendants-Appellees. 422 Mich. 886, 368 N.W.2d 214
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 214

368 N.W.2d 214

Carolyn PROCHAZKA and John Prochazka, and John Prochazka as Next Friend of Janean Prochazka Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OAK PARK DEVELOPMENTAL TRAINING CENTER, a body politic subdivision of the City of Oak Park, Dr. Clifford May and Irv Collins Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75401.

422 Mich. 886, 368 N.W.2d 214

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 13, 1985.

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court and REMAND the case to the Oakland Circuit Court for reconsideration in light of Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (On Rehearing), 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641 (1984).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

LEVIN, J., dissents and says:

There are 91 applications held in abeyance for Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641 (1984). I would remand this and all the other cases ¹ to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Ross, so that counsel for parties adversely affected by the orders now being entered would have an opportunity to brief and argue before an appellate panel of three judges the applicability of Ross. ²

To decide the applicability of Ross without the assistance of advocacy deprives parties adversely affected of the most basic element of a hearing, the opportunity to be heard after the issue is formulated. Until Ross was decided, the question of its applicability was not an issue.

It is unsafe to proceed on the assumption that nothing counsel could advance might persuade either the Court of Appeals or--if we were to provide an opportunity for further briefing--this Court that Ross does not govern disposition. Denying such an opportunity for further briefing and argument, both in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, is especially likely to result in inadequately informed judgment when this Court disposes of so many cases at one time.

1 The orders entered to date dispose of the 91 applications as follows:

(a) Peremptory reversal in whole or in part of the Court of Appeals or of the trial court, 9 applications.

(b) Denial of application for leave to appeal, 37 applications.

(c) Remand in whole or in part to trial court as to individual defendants only, 7 applications.

(d) Remand in whole or in part to trial court, 12 applications.

(e) Remand in whole or in part to Court of Appeals, 6 applications.

(f) Leave to appeal granted, no...