Legal Opinion

Durant v. Department of Education

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided November 5, 1990No. Docket 91271PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON SECOND REMAND

Before: Danhof, C.J., and Gillis and Mackenzie, JJ. Danhof, C.J.

Plaintiffs brought the instant action for mandamus in this Court, seeking to compel defendants to fund the Fitzgerald Public Schools in the same portion as those schools were funded in the fiscal year 1978-79, pursuant to Const 1963, art 9, §§ 25-34, more commonly referred to as the Headlee Amendment. We refused to issue the requested writ on the ground that plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies because they had failed to first obtain a decision before the local government claims review board…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Ex Rel. RowleySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Honig v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Traverse City School Dist. v. Atty. Gen.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
  4. State Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Hooker, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  5. Durant v. State Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Durant v. State of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
  3. MacOmb County Taxpayers Ass'n v. L'Anse Creuse Public SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Patillo v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Rusha v. Department of CorrectionsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014

26 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