Kenefick v. City of Battle Creek
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of a Battle Creek city ordinance. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(1) after determining that judgment as a matter of law was appropriate because the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. We affirm.
We review de novo a trial court’s conclusion that a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under MCR 2.116(I)(1). Sobiecki v Dep’t of Corrections, 271 Mich App 139, 141;…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Crego v. ColemanMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. NobleMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- Jackson County v. City of JacksonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
- Roger Turunen v. Department of Natural ResourcesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- In re EnglandMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
- Kenefick v. Battle CreekMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.