Legal Opinion

Romulus City Treasurer v. Wayne County Drain Commissioner

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided November 6, 1978No. Docket 31365, 77-24PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtD. E. Holbrook, J.

Our brother, Judge Bronson, clearly sets out the facts of the instant case in his dissent. The plaintiffs’ standing to raise their allegations of fraud in the court below must be upheld. It is clear that there is no authority directly on point in this matter and our disagreement with the dissent on this issue is merely a disagreement regarding the extent of irregularity implied in the plaintiffs’ allegations. The dissent is certainly correct when it notes that the treasurers’ statutory duties with regard to the collection of drain assessments are merely ministerial. MCL 211.43; MSA 7.84. In…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Board of Supervisors v. Supervisor of MentorMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  2. County Treasurer v. BunburyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Mayor of City of Dearborn v. Dearborn Retirement Board of TrusteesMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Township of Norton v. CockerillMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Corley v. LoganMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hillsdale County Senior Services, Inc v. Hillsdale CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Romulus City Treasurer v. Wayne County Drain CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Turner v. Lansing TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. Eyde v. Lansing TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Federal-Mogul Corp. v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987

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