Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Davis v. City of Detroit Financial Review Team

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 21, 2012No. Docket Nos. 309218, 309250, and 309482Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Connell, J.

I concur with the majority opinion that the City of Detroit Financial Review Team is not subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq. I also concur that the Governor and the State Treasurer, being individual executive branch officeholders, are not *628subject to the strictures of the OMA in these cases.1 I part ways with the majority opinion in its discussion of injunctive and declaratory relief. I write separately to emphasize that an injunction against a coequal branch of government should be an extremely rare remedy, available only after a party has definitively established that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Zivotofsky Ex Rel. Zivotofsky v. ClintonSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  3. People ex rel. Sutherland v. GovernorMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Straus v. GovernorMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Durant v. State of MichiganMichigan Supreme Court · 1997

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