Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of East Lansing

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 2000No. 113674, Calendar No. 6Published

1ConcurrenceKelly, J.

Qconcurring). In this taking case, defendant, the city of East Lansing, appeals from a Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court in part and reversing it in part in favor of plaintiff, Adams Outdoor Advertising. The issue is whether defendant’s sign ordinance resulted in a regulatory taking of plaintiff’s billboards and rooftop leaseholds.

I would reverse the Court of Appeals decision insofar as it holds that defendant’s sign ordinance resulted in a taking and reverse the trial court order granting compensation to plaintiff. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API