Tireman-Joy-Chicago Improvement Ass'n v. Chernick
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
.'Smith, J.
Appellants complain of variances (exceptions) granted by defendant board of zoning appeals without rhyme or reason. They say that the ordinance permitting the grant of variances is vaguely phrased and without specific standards (for ex*214ample, “unnecessary hardship” is a ground). In addition they complain that the board’s action here was “wholly unwarranted under the facts.” What, in truth, was the warrant for the board’s action? We are not told. The board says we do not have to be told.
Thus, under the board’s argument, the citizen gets it going and coming. Were the legislative…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Matter of Otto v. SteinhilberNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Brae Burn, Inc. v. City of Bloomfield HillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Welton v. HamiltonIllinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Giordano v. City Commission of the City of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1949
- Stolz v. EllensteinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Deardorf v. Board of Adjustment of Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1962
- Fields v. Kodiak City CouncilAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
- MacEnas v. Village of MichianaMichigan Supreme Court · 1989
- Puritan-Greenfield Improvement Ass'n v. LeoMichigan Court of Appeals · 1967
- Square Lake Hills Condominium Ass'n v. Bloomfield TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.