Opinion ID: 1842234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lee v Employment Security Commission, 346 Mich 171, 179; 78 NW2d 309 (1956). (BLACK, J., concurring).

Text: Justice BLACK in his concurring opinion pointed out that the Court normally treated MESA appeals as appeals as of right. It was his opinion, however, that these matters should properly be heard on leave to appeal. 2. Bedwell v Employment Security Commission, 367 Mich 415, 423; 116 NW2d 920 (1962). The Court noted its long-standing practice of treating MESA appeals as a matter of right. (Cases were cited from 297 Mich through 358 Mich). Justice DETHMERS writing for the majority continued: I see no reason for any other course here. Reference is made to the subsequent adoption by this Court, effective December 1, 1961, after appeal was taken in this case, of the amendment to Court Rule No 60, § 1 (1945), expressly permitting taking of appeals as of right in this kind of case. It is urged that this represents recognition that the procedure theretofore was otherwise. We think rather that the amendment was in recognition of and intended to clarify what had long been the practice, right or wrong, in these cases. The amendment to the court rule referred to in Bedwell may be found at page xiv of 364 Mich. The point of the amendment was to specifically add to former court rule 60 a proviso that clearly granted appeal as of right in unemployment compensation cases. 3. People v Brothman, 4 Mich App 709; 145 NW2d 355 (1966). This case was relied upon by counsel for appellant at oral argument. In Brothman the controlling question was: [W]hether a defendant, who was convicted of a misdemeanor in justice or municipal court and again convicted in circuit court on a trial de novo on appeal, may appeal by right to the Court of Appeals from his circuit court conviction. The Court of Appeals in Brothman concluded that there was, indeed, an appeal of right. Section 308 [MCLA 600.308] declares that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction on appeals from all final judgments of the circuit court. Section 309 [MCLA 600.309] states that all appeals permitted by the act to the Court of Appeals from final judgments are by right. The logical conclusion is that all final judgments of the circuit court are appealable by right to the Court of Appeals. There is no question that the defendants in these cases are appealing from final judgments rendered by the circuit court. There is no exception made by this statute for cases that originated in a lower tribunal but terminated with a final circuit court judgment. Although Brothman is not directly in point, it would be persuasive precedent in the present situation but for the fact that it predates both the amendment to GCR 1963, 806.2 that added subsection 2(4) [1] and the amendment to MCLA 600.308 [2] that significantly limited the situations in which a leave as of right was proper. Prior to these amendments, GCR 1963, 806.2 made no specific reference to cases heard in circuit court on appeal from the district court and MCLA 600.308 did not specifically state that, [a]ppeals from final judgments from all other courts    shall be taken to the circuit courts, upon which further review may be had only upon application for leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals. 4. Porter v Board of Optometry, 41 Mich App 150; 199 NW2d 666 (1972). In Porter the Court of Appeals declined to accept plaintiff's argument that an appeal of right could be had from a circuit court review of the decision of the State Board of Examiners in Optometry. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that leave to appeal is the only permissible method for review of decisions of administrative tribunals such as the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which are appealable directly to the Court of Appeals. It then reasoned that it would be illogical to hold that cases appealable directly to the Court of Appeals could be handled on a leave granted basis, while cases that had the benefit of circuit court review were entitled to leave as a matter or right in the Court of Appeals. 5. Hoffman v SOS Consolidated, Inc, 45 Mich App 163; 206 NW2d 214 (1973). Plaintiff cites in his brief this recent case in which former Justice O'HARA began his opinion with these words: This is an employment-security-benefit case before us on appeal of right from an order of the circuit court affirming a determination of the appeal board of the commission. No discussion was offered in Hoffman of the procedural issue now under consideration.