Legal Opinion

Bolt v. City of Lansing

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 12, 1999No. Docket No. 192944PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSaad, P.J.

We decide this case on remand from our Supreme Court. Previously, we held that a storm water service charge the city of Lansing imposed on certain property owners was not a tax subject to the requirements of the Headlee Amendment,1 but rather a user fee. Bolt v Lansing, 221 Mich App 79; 561 NW2d 423 (1997). Our Supreme Court reversed and held that the service charge was, in fact, a tax, and that Lansing Ordinance No. 925 was therefore unconstitutional under the Headlee Amendment. 459 Mich *40152; 587 NW2d 264 (1998). We now consider further issues as required by the Supreme Court’s remand.

I. NATURE…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Williams v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Tebo v. HavlikMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  4. City of Cincinnati v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
  5. Bolt v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Solution Source, Inc. v. LPR Associates Ltd. PartnershipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. Jackson County v. City of JacksonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Adair v. MichiganMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. In Re 2002 Pa 48, House of Representatives'requestMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Bolt v. City of LansingMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000

5 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