Legal Opinion

Village of Kingsford v. Cudlip

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 4, 1932No. Docket No. 45, Calendar No. 36,131PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

On August 7,1931, an election was held pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 278, Pub. Acts 1909, as amended by Act No. 395, Pub. Acts 1919, to determine whether certain territory in the township of Breitnng should be annexed to the village of Kingsford. The proceedings incident to the taking of a vote on the question are not attacked. Section 4 of the act (1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 1766) provides that the question “shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the district to be affected” by the change of boundaries. Section 5, as amendéd in 1929 (1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 1767), reads as follows:

“Th…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commissioners of Laramie County v. COMMISSIONERS OF ALBANY COUNTYSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Smith v. Mayor of SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Oakman v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Bray v. StewartMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Handy v. Township of MeridianMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Midland Township v. State Boundary CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Hays v. City of KalamazooMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  3. People v. SellMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Tribbett v. Village of MarcellusMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Goethal v. Kent County SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1960

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API