Court Opinion

ID: 9678552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:23:00.968399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.644056
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). I agree that the statute considered in the opinion of Mr. Justice Smith (CLS 1956, § 421.38 [Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 17.540]) *670provides “for a limited judicial review.” Too, I agree that plaintiff’s right to review the appeal board’s decision was exclusively provided by that statute.
The statute, fully procedural in nature as to its provision for judicial review, does not conflict with any adopted rule of our Court. Thus upon enactment it became an adopted rule of practice by force of 27-year-old section 3 of Court Rule No 1 (1945).  See Darr v. Buckley, 355 Mich 392, syllabus No 2.
This is not a proper occasion for determination of stated question 1 † , that is, whether circuit court venue is substantively jurisdictional. For such reason I am not ready to commit my signature to a ruling which might be construed as holding that this Court does not have authority to determine circuit court venue by rule adopted pursuant to Const 1908, art 7, §§ 4, 5.
Whether venue is “jurisdictional” or not, the fact remains that this employer’s special appearance and motion to dismiss were quite in order. The situation might be otherwise had all parties unreservedly squared off to obtain (and did obtain) a judicial decision of meritorious affirmance or reversal of the administrative ruling in question. See to the point Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 324 US 635, 638, 639 (65 S Ct 821, 89 L ed 1241).
The employer, having raised the question of improper venue by timely motion, was entitled to a determination below that the writ had been sued out in the wrong circuit and that it should on that account *671be dismissed. Wayne county is not the county of plaintiff’s residence. Neither is it the county where the employer’s “principal place of business in Michigan” is located. And the writ was not sued out in the Ingham circuit. Under the aforesaid statutory rule, designating as it does the proper circuit court to which the petitioner’s application for certiorari should be addressed, the employer’s motion was good and should have been granted.
I concur in reversal.

 “Is the provision in section 38 of the Michigan employment security act, being CLS 1956, § 421.38 (Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 17.540), that a claimant may appeal by way of certiorari from a final decision of the appeal board of the Michigan employment security commission to the circuit court in the county in which he resides, or to the county of Ingham, a direct jurisdictional requirement?”