Mayor of Cadillac v. Blackburn
306 Mich. App. 512
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mayor of Cadillac sought removal of a civil service commissioner under MCL 38.504 after the commissioner was involved in opposing campaign activity.
- Commission consists of three members; removal requires formal petition and is contingent on removal being confirmed by circuit court.
- If the commissioner answers removal within 10 days, removal is suspended pending circuit court proceedings; the mayor must then file a full petition for confirmation.
- Circuit court held it had original jurisdiction under MCL 38.504 and required the mayor to prove removal by a preponderance of the evidence at a de novo hearing.
- Petitioner argued this violated Const 1963, art 6, § 28 and separation of powers; the court held otherwise and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 38.504 contemplates de novo review. | Mayor: statute permits de novo court review of removal petition. | Respondent: review should be limited as advised by constitutional provisions. | Yes; circuit court conducts de novo review under the statute. |
| Whether circuit court has original jurisdiction over the removal petition. | Mayor: original jurisdiction exists under MCL 38.504 to hear the petition. | Respondent: jurisdiction questions should align with administrative review norms. | Yes; circuit court has original jurisdiction under MCL 38.504. |
| What standard of proof applies to the removal petition. | Mayor: preponderance of the evidence is appropriate. | Respondent: standard should be defined by other statutory cues. | Preponderance of the evidence applies. |
| Does allowing circuit court review of removal violate separation of powers. | Mayor argues no violation; judicial review is appropriate for petitions under the statute. | Respondent argues it encroaches on executive prerogatives. | No violation; statutory framework permits judicial review without improper encroachment. |
| Is Const 1963, art 6, § 28 controlling here. | Mayor: article 6 review governs final administrative decisions only. | Respondent: article 6 review does not apply to this original action. | No, article 6, § 28 does not control this original action; de novo review is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (Mich. 2014) (statutory interpretation and de novo review framework)
- Residential Ratepayer Consortium v Pub Serv Comm, 198 Mich App 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (standard of proof in civil proceedings)
- Viculin v Dep’t of Civil Serv, 386 Mich 375 (Mich. 1971) (de novo review not guaranteed for all administrative decisions)
- Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464 Mich 726 (Mich. 2001) (judicial power to hear and decide controversies)
- Risor v Hoyt, 53 Mich 185 (Mich. 1884) (definition of judicial power)