Court Opinion

ID: 9678978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:37:32.128271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.300427
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). Without reservation I agree with the comment and reasoning Justice Souris has written in paragraphs 6 through 9 of his opinion for reversal. But the trouble is that a majority of the Court did not agree with us in the Bossin’s Food Products Case (360 Mich 312) and still does not agree with our view that the State tax commission is an “agency” within section 1(1) of the administrative procedures act (CLS 1961, § 24.101 et seq. [Stat Ann 1961 Rev § 3.560(21.1)]).
In this'Court two unsuccessful attempts at persuasion are enough. Better to lie in wait as more ammunition pours in. Resignedly, therefore, I have indorsed the opinion of Justice Adams as a correct application of the constitutional provision (art 6, § 28, Const 1963) and of our current rule which restricts judicial review of orders and decisions of the State tax commission.