Legal Opinion
Howell Township v. Rooto Corporation
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided November 10, 2003No. Docket 236440PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGage, J.
This case involves a long legal battle between plaintiff Howell Township and defendant Rooto Corporation over compensation for costs the township incurred in responding to a fire at defendant’s plant. The township sought compensation under Howell Township Ordinance 53. The trial court found Ordinance 53 preempted by Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (nrepa), MCL 324.20101 et seq., and dismissed the township’s claims against defendant. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
i
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Around Thanksgiving of 1995, a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of DetroitSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Old Republic InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- People v. LlewellynMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
- Rental Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
- City of Grand Haven v. Grocer's Cooperative Dairy Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hess v. Cannon TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
- Czymbor’s Timber, Inc v. City of SaginawMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- Risk v. Lincoln Charter Township Board of TrusteesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2008
- H a Smith Lumber & Hardware Co. v. DecinaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
- Hess v. Cannon TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.