Court Opinion

ID: 9732662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:30:25.584397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:31.212369
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I find it necessary to disagree with the majority. The reason is simply that the two cases cited as the basis for reversal simply do not hold what my colleagues say they do. This error is easily made unless the signatures of the participating Justices in both Losada1 and Keith2 are counted with mathematical precision and exactly what each signing Justice held is examined with microscopic care.
Keith is precedential authority for nothing. It is a 3-to-3 opinion and is the law only for that case. (Justice Levin did not participate.) Hence I find the majority’s reliance thereon misplaced.
Losada requires even closer scrutiny. There were four opinions in Losada. What Judge Kelly quotes therefrom as authority for the finding that the first issue to be determined is whether the work *179was "suitable”, and then only can the issue of "good cause” be considered and determined as a fact issue, collected only three signatures, Justices T. M. Kavanagh, Adams and Smith.
Justice Souris wrote a separate opinion and held point blank:
"As to the issue of good cause, however, it is an issue of law, in my view.” Losada at 218.
He voted to remand for further testimony.
Justice Black wrote separately and held that none of his colleagues wrote to the issue raised by the appeal. While his opinion did, as I read it, advert to the issue of "good cause” as being one of fact, the precise holding is that since there was testimony to support the appeal board’s decision he felt obligated to reverse the trial judge who had set aside the decision of the board. The former Justice did not, as such, discuss the issue of "suitable work”.
Justices O’Hara, Dethmers and Kelly held that there was no necessity for further testimony and joined in a finding that the appeal board " 'committed an error, in law’ ”. 376 Mich at 224.
Thus again this case is at best a judicial standoff3 and its effect was merely to reverse the trial court, but without majority agreement on any of the issues raised. It is of no precedential value.
Thus not being bound by any of the decisional excerpts from Losada or Keith and finding testi*180mony to support the holding of the administrative judge and the appeal board, it is my view that we are obligated to affirm the trial judge and I so vote.

 Chrysler Corp v Losada, 376 Mich 209; 135 NW2d 897 (1965).

 Keith v Chrysler Corp, 390 Mich 458; 213 NW2d 147 (1973).

 Out of the eight members of the Court present and voting only four (the signatories to the Smith opinion plus Justice Souris) found that the issue of suitable work was an issue of fact to be determined at the outset and only four Justices (those who signed the opinion authored by Justice Smith in addition to Justice Black) held that "good cause” was an issue of fact.