Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bolt v. City of Lansing

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1998No. 108511, Calendar No. 4Published

1DissentBoyle, J.

In its opinion today, the majority holds that the Lansing “storm water service charge is a tax, for which approval is required by a vote of the people,” ante at 154.1 respectfully dissent. Because the storm water disposal system benefits every landowner who uses the system and the Lansing ordinance reasonably calculates the fee on the basis of each landowner’s use, I find that the ordinance imposes a fee, not a tax, on Lansing residents. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

i

A rather complex procedural quagmire spawned this case. Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Vernor v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. City of Cincinnati v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
  3. Teter v. Clark CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Merrelli v. City of St. Clair ShoresMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Roseburg School District v. City of RoseburgOregon Supreme Court · 1993

11 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