Kropf v. City of Sterling Heights
Michigan Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceLevin, J.
Much of the law of zoning is premised on the assumption that zoning decisions of a local legislative body necessarily represent legislative action.
On that premise, the courts require a property owner dissatisfied with a zoning use restriction to prove that the "legislation” is irrational — the burden generally imposed when an act of the Legislature is attacked as unconstitutional. That approach is sound if maintenance of a use restriction truly reflects legislative action; the courts may then properly require a person attacking the restriction to prove that no use permitted is reasonable.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Avery v. Midland CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Londoner v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Brae Burn, Inc. v. City of Bloomfield HillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.