Wayne Cnty. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Wayne Charter Cnty.

15 Citing cases

  1. Calvert Bail Bonds Agency, LLC v. St. Clair Cnty.

    No. 357003 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2022)

    Stated differently, "[t]he appellant himself must first adequately prime the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow." Wayne Co Employees Retirement Sys v Wayne Charter Co, 497 Mich. 36, 41; 859 N.W.2d 678 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). When a party fails to properly brief an issue, we can consider it abandoned and decline to address it.

  2. In re Sims

    No. 368450 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)

    The appellant himself must first adequately prime the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow." Mudge v Macomb Co, 458 Mich. 87, 105; 580 N.W.2d 845 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Wayne Co Employees Retirement Sys v Wayne Charter Co, 497 Mich. 36, 41; 859 N.W.2d 678 (2014) (a party abandons an issue by failing to prime the pump, rendering it unnecessary to address the merits of the issue, and leaves the appellate court ill equipped to do so).

  3. Steele v. Steele

    No. 351272 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2021)

    "The appellant [] must first adequately prime the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow." Wayne Co Employees Retirement Sys v Wayne Charter Co, 497 Mich 36, 41; 859 NW2d 678 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Because defendant has essentially left it for us to determine the applicable law, the required accommodations, and any resultant remedy, the issue has been abandoned and we need not consider it.

  4. Keybank v. Lake Villa Oxford Assocs.

    No. 348443 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 7, 2020)

    "The appellant himself must first adequately prime the pump; only then does the appellate well begin to flow." Wayne Co Employees Retirement Sys v Wayne Charter Co, 497 Mich 36, 41; 859 NW2d 678 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "[W]here a party fails to brief the merits of an allegation of error, the issue is deemed abandoned by this Court."

  5. AFSCME Council 25 v. Wayne Cnty.

    No. 337964 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2018)

    CBA III also acknowledges the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System provisions are controlling, and additionally states: "All employees hired on or after October 1, 2008 shall not be eligible for a 13th check upon retirement." The history of amendment of Section 141-32 of the Wayne County Code of Ordinances was discussed by our Supreme Court in Wayne Co Employees Retirement Sys v Wayne Co, 497 Mich 36, 38-39; 859 NW2d 678 (2014): The Wayne County Employees Retirement System ("retirement system") was established in 1944 "for the purpose of providing retirement income to eligible employees and survivor benefits."

  6. Hudson v. Kleuessendorf

    No. 333124 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2017)

    Moreover, these issues are cursory and undeveloped, and they are deemed abandoned. See Wayne Co Employees Retirement Sys v Wayne Charter Co, 497 Mich 36, 41; 859 NW2d 678 (2014). Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs' reply brief on appeal sets forth two entirely new issues presented, these issues are not properly before this Court; thus, we do not address them.

  7. Gov't Emps. Ret. Sys. of V.I. v. Gov't of V.I.

    995 F.3d 66 (3d Cir. 2021)   Cited 13 times
    Applying de novo review

    . of Trustees of Town of Lake Park Firefighters’ Pension Plan v. Town of Lake Park , 966 So.2d 448, 450 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (noting "mandatory five percent contribution or payment by each firefighter" and "a mandatory payment by the municipality of ‘a sum equal to the normal cost of and the amount required to fund any actuarial deficiency shown by an actuarial valuation as provided in part VII of chapter 112’ " (quoting Fla. Stat. § 175.091(1)(g) ); see also Wayne Cnty. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Wayne Charter Cnty. , 859 N.W.2d 678, 679 (Mich. 2014)) ("Each year, the county is required by Const. 1963 art. 9, § 24, to make an ‘annual required contribution’ (ARC). An annual actuarial valuation determines the ARC amount."

  8. City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel

    Case No. 12-12830 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2018)

    This will alleviate all concerns the Hospital Retirees have and it will fully protect all beneficiaries of the Pension Plan. The Hospital Retirees also argue that the Settlement Agreement is illegal based on the holding in Wayne Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. Charter Co. of Wayne, 301 Mich. App. 1 (2013), aff'd in part and vacated in part, Wayne Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. Charter Co of Wayne, 497 Mich 36 (2014). In Wayne Co., the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court were confronted with an unusual program that allowed Wayne County to offset constitutionally mandated actuarially required contributions (ARC) to its MERS guidelines require a transfer of 110% of a system.

  9. Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Mich.

    498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "just as in Driver, '[a]pplying MCL 600.2301 in the present case would deprive [defendants] of [their] statutory right to a timely NOI followed by the appropriate notice waiting period' "

    Given that the Tyra plaintiff has not briefed whether the Tyra defendants sufficiently pleaded their affirmative defenses, nor the relevance of this in light of Auslander, we need not address these issues and we will not do so here because plaintiff's abandonment of these issues has left us ill equipped to address the merits of these issues. See Wayne Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. Wayne Charter County, 497 Mich. 36, 41, 859 N.W.2d 678 (2014) (stating that “[t]he county's abandonment of the issue on appeal ... has left us ill equipped to address the merits” of the issue).C. ZWIERS OVERRULED Adopting Auslander v. Chernick, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 1, 2007 (Docket No. 274079), 2007 WL 1263905 (Jansen,J., dissenting).

  10. Brosamer v. Lenawee Cmty. Mental Health Auth. (In re Brosamer)

    328 Mich. App. 267 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    [ Janet Travis , 306 Mich. App. at 274 , quoting Wayne Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. Wayne Co. , 301 Mich. App. 1, 28, 836 N.W.2d 279 (2013), aff'd in part and vacated in part 497 Mich. 36 (2014).]