Legal Opinion
Kethman v. Oceola Township
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided January 16, 1979No. Docket 77-4299PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtD. E. Holbrook, J.
Plaintiff is the land contract purchaser of a 90-acre parcel of real property in the defendant township. Were it not for a 33-foot wide access easement appurtenant to his property, the plaintiff’s acreage would be landlocked. The defendant township’s zoning ordinance, enacted January 6, 1972, requires that all private roads serving as access to more than one parcel of real estate be 66 feet wide. Seeking to divide and develop his property for sale, plaintiff petitioned the defendant for a variance from the above requirement on June 15, 1972.
The plaintiff alleged that on the above date he was…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Stone v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Brae Burn, Inc. v. City of Bloomfield HillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Kropf v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
- Buckeye Union Fire Insurance v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
- City of Lansing v. DawleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Frericks v. Highland TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
- Schlehuser v. City of SeymourIndiana Court of Appeals · 1996
- Poirier v. Grand Blanc TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
- Central Advertising Co. v. City of NoviMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979
- Hillside Productions, Inc. v. DuchaneDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.