Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. Ross Township
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided March 20, 1978No. Docket 31282, 31283PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtR. B. Burns, J.
In these consolidated cases plaintiffs Armstrong (hereinafter plaintiffs) seek damages and other relief against defendants Ross Township, the township building inspector, and members of the township board, planning commission, and zoning board of appeals, alleging abuse of zoning power and violation of civil rights. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to liability for damages were denied, except for Ross Township’s alleged liability under 42 USC 1983. We granted defendants’ applications for leave to appeal, and affirm in part and reverse in part.
In case 31282 plaintiffs allege…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Wood v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Tenney v. BrandhoveSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Odom v. Wayne CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
- Norris v. City of Lincoln Park Police OfficersMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
- Furness v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
- Martin v. MichiganMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
- Antkiewicz v. Motorists Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.