Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Detroit v. Walker

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1994No. Docket Nos. 96594-96599, (Calendar No. 8)Published

1Dissent

*706Riley, J.

I respectfully dissent for several reasons. First and foremost, there exists binding authority for the proposition that changes in the method of tax collection that alter the nature of collection from an in rem to an in personam action are unconstitutional to the extent that they apply retroactively, i.e., to taxes previously assessed. Second, statutes governing the collection of taxes are to be strictly construed with all doubts to be construed in favor of the taxpayer. Contrary to the majority’s assertions, the 1974 charter provisions at issue are far from clear on the issue…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Selk v. Detroit Plastic ProductsMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Hansen-Snyder Co. v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1963
  3. People v. JamiesonMichigan Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Thompson v. Auditor GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. In Re Dodge BrothersMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

27 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