Legal Opinion

London v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1958No. Docket 3, Calendar 47,053PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, J.

Plaintiff is owner of a bowling alley located on Grand River avenue in Detroit. He also owns 2 lots known as 6817-6823 Vinewood which are located nearby and which he has used, and seeks to continue to use, for parking the cars of bowling patrons.

The city of Detroit in a zoning ordinance, effective December 25, 1940, zoned these 2 lots for R2, a residence classification, requiring a special permit before property thus zoned could be used for a parking lot. No such permit has been obtained by plaintiff, and the city of Detroit, through its department of buildings and safety engineering, filed…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Long v. City of Highland ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Certain-Teed Products Corp. v. Paris TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Hartka v. HartkaMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Biscay v. City of BurlingameCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Burra v. Aetna Life InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
  2. Barry County v. EdmondsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API