*1 MORRIS, INCORPORATED BRADLEY v PHILIP REMAND) (AFTER 1, 96432, March 1994. On Docket Nos. 96433. Decided appeal, Supreme in lieu the defendants for leave to Appeals leave, granting judgment of the Court of vacated a new trial case to the circuit court for and remanded the against Philip only. brought Bradley Cynthia Carsley an action Ronald and Morris, Incorporated, against Philip Circuit Court Oakland court, discharge. supervisors, alleging wrongful The two of its judgment J., Cooper, on a verdict Jessica R. entered P.J., Appeals, Jansen, plaintiffs. The Court of notwithstanding Weaver, JJ., granted judgment Sullivan and remanded the case the verdict for the two (Docket respect Nos. a new trial with 112807). plaintiffs’ application Supreme The Court denied appeal, vacated in Appeals, remand, Mich 870 On concluding existed for the jury regarding there contract whether was 155143). (Docket employment Nos. seeks leave signed by Chief Justice In a memorandum Justices Court held: vacated, and the case against Philip a new trial is remanded to the circuit court for only. Vacated and remanded. dissenting, force stated that the Justice set should not be or effect of an Michigan Supreme aside absent Supreme Court that the Court of

or the United States lightly should not be erred. Such not be made without should persons brief seek to file a notice to other Philip Morris, Opinion of the Court curiae, as amicus by an affirmance or reversal of the decision. affected majority does not indicate how the Court analysis. have erred in its Denial of *2 imperative constitutional with the writing are to be in that decisions of the statement of the facts and reasons are to contain a concise to reasons for each denial of léave each decision and (1992) 44; App 486 NW2d 48 affirmed. 194 Mich (1993) 194; App vacated. 501 NW2d Hodges Waldman, O’Hare, Helveston,

Sachs, Bogas), plain- (by Barnes, L. for the P.C. Kathleen tiff. (by

Miller, Canñeld, W. Mack Paddock & Stone Soubly) M. defendant. Faison and Diane Opinion. plaintiffs were fired Memorandum ground Philip by. of work- on the plaintiffs misconduct, denied. related They (and supervisors), Philip two sued jury verdicts. won sizable Appeals granted judgment notwith- The Court standing for the two the verdict respect to trial with remanded the case for a new Philip App Morris.

(1991). Court,1 from this

On remand peals trial. It concluded that regard to whether existed with employment. contract of there was a Mich (1993). Philip appeals. of the Court vacate the second

We application appeal; plaintiffs’ for leave to This denied the response appellant, Appeals consideration. Philip as cross Morris’ of the this Court vacated Appeals for further 440 Mich 870 court the circuit this case to remand Appeals, only, against for a new of the Court first with accordance paragraph third in the rule stated Appeals. of the Court end of the second from the v General is overbroad.3 opinion2 107; 507 NW2d 7.302(F)(1). (1993) . MCR C.J., JJ., concurred. deny I would leave (dissenting). J. peremptory vacation dissent from the appeal and opinion of of the second the first and Because both new trial only remand for a the effect of this Court’s against affirm the decision is to opinion today a sentence with a *3 today’s major- in note —in set forth opinion, is indeed a "overbroad.” There ity v in recent of this Court’s citation General how the (1993), the Court does not indicate but in analysis, erred its have is broader language the of the sentence

or wherein said in Rood. than what was in decision is similar to the Today’s People Barajas, v

(1994) , to "affirm purported in the Court flag Appeals” with "that em- emphasizes analysis that strictly ployed by is limited the Court of unambig Where, here, employer expressly has not as will, employees uously right at a to terminate its reserved the by jury. must be decided a [199 fact is created that Mich 197.] respects, application for leave to is denied. In other all by case,” in of this and to the decisions to the facts Surety Casualty Co, v Aetna Bernthal (1994), and Ginther v Ovid-Elsie Area (1994), Schools, in which the Court appeal with the that in those denies leave to cases the peals repeat Ap reported "opinion of the Court of precedential I force or effect.” shall have no separate opinion I in a what said separate statements in those cases: Michigan was established Constitution, judges and the

by the 1963 perform public officials who Court are elected function set forth lished law, vested in the Court of pub- Their the constitution. opinions authoritative are statements by grace by power not of this but Appeals by the constitution. should not be set aside absent United States this Court or Appeals erred. Such a decision should not be lightly without notice to other panies, fected should not be made persons, other insurance com- here af- an affirmance or reversal of the decision seek to file a brief as amicus curiae. Further, denying this Court’s order force or effect to an peals imperative with the constitutional that decisions of this Court "shall be writing the facts and reasons for each decision and reasons for each decision and reasons for each denial of and shall contain concise statement p 6. appeal.” [Barajas, Const art § 556; Bemthal, Ginther, pp 1217-1218; p 1218.] *4 approach The Court’s in these cases suggest simple incorrectly read to denial of adoption of the is an