Court Opinion

ID: 9713237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:11:34.821692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.693485
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). This is another case where circuit court certiorari proceedings have arrived and burgeoned in this Court without application and grant of leave to appeal. There having been no challenge either from party or Court considering absence of such application and leave, the merits of the controversy were fully briefed and submitted during the April term.
During the same term we received another like case (Melia v. Employment Security Commission, post, 544), the only procedural difference being that the latter arrived here on due application for leave to appeal and order granting same dated December 1, 1955.
*180. In the one instance we apparently continue to treat “the matter” as a general appeal requiring no application and grant of leave (Palmer v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 310 Mich 702, 158 ALR 909); Intertown Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 328 Mich 363); whereas by granted appeal in the other we leave in picturesque uncertainty the question whether final circuit court orders entered on certiorari to the Michigan employment security commission are reviewable hereof right.
I allude to this anomaly of the April term for future reference in conjunction with respective opinions Hied in In re Fitch Drain No. 129, 346 Mich 81, and to guard against exposure to future suggestion that silence-here makes acquiescent law in favor-of review of right from circuit court certiorari proceedings.
Considering mentioned opinions in the Fitch Drain Case and corresponding expiration here of the time within which delayed appeal might effectively be sought, I am ready on this separate occasion to accept the attorney general’s claim of appeal as a duly granted application for leave to appeal. - Having done so, I concur both as to reasoning and result in Mr. Justice Sharpe’s opinion.