Legal Opinion
Dorman v. Township of Clinton
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided April 12, 2006No. Docket 256362PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
Plaintiff Michael Dorman appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant Clinton Township’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) 1 in this dispute regarding the rezoning of plaintiffs property. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs inverse condemnation action, in which plaintiff alleged that the township’s actions amounted to a regulatory taking and violated his right to substantive due process. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a licensed mortgage lender and broker who frequently speculates in real estate. In April of 2001, he…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Brae Burn, Inc. v. City of Bloomfield HillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Chelsea Investment Group LLC v. City of ChelseaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2010
- Wiggins v. City of BurtonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
- Hardrick v. Auto Club InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
- State ex rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. City of Mayfield HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Blue Harvest, Inc. v. Department of TransportationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2010
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.