|
No. 124835
| Associated Builders and Contractors, |
|
David John Masud |
| Saginaw Valley Area Chapter, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| vs (Midland - Ludington, T.) |
|
|
Director of the Michigan Department of |
|
Richard P. Gartner |
Consumer & Industry Services and |
|
|
| Midland County Prosecuting Attorney, |
|
|
Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Michigan State Building & Construction |
|
John R. Canzano |
| Trades Council, et al |
|
|
Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Sagainaw County Prosecuting Attorney, |
|
David M. Gilbert |
Intervenor/Appellee. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oral Argument on Application
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal >>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Consolidated Reply to Briefs in Opposition>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Consolidated Reply to Consolidated Briefs>>
Defendant-Appellee MI Dept of Consumer & Industry Services' Brief in Opposition>>
Defendant-Appellee MI Dept of Consumer & Industry Services' Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee MI Dept of Consumer & Industry Services' Reply Brief>>
Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees' Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees' Supplemental Brief>>
Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees' Joint Reply to Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Intervenor/Appellee Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney's Brief in Opposition>>
Background
The Prevailing Wage Act, MCL 408.551 et seq , requires that certain contracts for state projects include a provision requiring the contractor to pay the "prevailing" wages and fringe benefits for projects of the same character in that locality. Plaintiff Associated Builders and Contractors, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter is an association of non-union contractors. It brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Director of the Department of Consumer & Industry Services and the Midland County Prosecutor, challenging the statute's constitutionality. The trial court ruled on the merits of the case, agreeing with the defendants that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. The court did, however, allow Associated Builders to proceed with its claim that the statute amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to unions and union contractors. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal. The appellate panel noted Associated Builders' constitutional challenge, but concluded that there was no "actual controversy" because the injuries that Associated Builders seeks to prevent through the lawsuit are merely hypothetical. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled that Associated Builders' entire declaratory judgment action could not proceed. Associated Builders appeals, arguing that there is an actual controversy, and that the Court of Appeals, having ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, should not have addressed the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.
Top of Page
|
