Legal Opinion
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc v. City of Holland
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 1, 2001No. Docket 114919PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.
The issue in this case is whether §§ 39-348(g) and 39-350(b) of defendant city of Holland’s Zoning Ordinance No. 1100 are invalid under either the Michigan Home Rule City Act (hrca) 1 or the Michigan City and Village Zoning Act (cvza). 2 The circuit court ruled in favor of plaintiff, Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc., holding the sections invalid. The Court of Appeals reversed. 234 Mich App 681; 600 NW2d 339 (1999).
We hold that §§ 39-348(g) and 39-350(b) are valid because defendant enacted them as part of its zoning ordinance under the cvza. Hence, the hrca’s provision authorizing cities to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Oakland County Board v. Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Sands Appliance Services, Inc v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Kirk v. Tyrone TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Gustafson v. City of Lake AngelusCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Pohutski v. City of Allen ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Zaher v. MiotkeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
- Coblentz v. City of NoviMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Douglas v. Allstate Insurance CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
- City of Riverview v. Sibley LimestoneMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.