Okrie v. State
306 Mich. App. 445
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Okrie filed an original action challenging PA 164 (2013) which moved the Court of Claims from the Ingham Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals.
- PA 164 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals and appoints four Court of Appeals judges to serve as Court of Claims judges.
- Plaintiff alleges the transfer violates separation of powers, usurps constitutional jurisdiction, and affects due process and immediate effect requirements.
- Court notes Court of Claims is legislatively created and not a constitutional court, and transfer is within Legislature’s authority under the current constitutional framework.
- Court recognizes PA 164 expands this Court’s role to include exclusive original jurisdiction over validity challenges to the Court of Claims statutes, and that the act’s mechanics (assignment, screening, and recusal procedures) address due process concerns.
- Court ultimately denies relief, upholding the constitutionality and procedural validity of PA 164.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PA 164 violate separation of powers | PA 164 intrudes on this Court’s authority | PA 164 aligns with constitutional framework and legislature’s power | No constitutional violation |
| Are Court of Claims judges’ incompatible offices violated | Four Court of Claims judges hold incompatible offices | No violation given statutory framework and control by Supreme Court | No incompatible-offices violation |
| Does transfer of Court of Claims functions affect circuit court jurisdiction | Transfer diminishes circuit court authority | Court of Claims is legislatively created; transfer is permissible | No diminution of circuit-court jurisdiction |
| Is there a due-process violation regarding impartial decision-maker | Potential bias because review occurs in same court | Screening procedures and recusal/absence of bias safeguards | No due-process violation; no appearance of impropriety requiring recusal |
| Does PA 164 have immediate-effect validity under Const 1963 art 4, §27 | Immediate effect requires two-thirds in both houses not met | Journal shows two-thirds vote; Hammel controls | PA 164 properly given immediate effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenfield Construction Co v Dep’t of State Hwys, 402 Mich 172 (1978) (court-claims jurisdiction and sovereign immunity context)
- Littsey v Bd of Governors of Wayne State Univ, 108 Mich App 406 (1981) (court of claims is legislatively created; narrow jurisdiction)
- Taylor v Auditor General, 360 Mich 146 (1960) (Court of Claims as substitute for prior boards; limited jurisdiction)
- Kean v Dawson, 275 Mich App 671 (2007) (statutory construction and constitutional interpretation rules)
- Caperton v AT Massey Coal Co, Inc, 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (due process and appearance of impropriety in adjudicatory process)