Legal Opinion

Rosenthal v. Triangle Development Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1933No. Docket No. 95, Calendar No. 36,370PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

We have said that “the right * * * to live in a district uninvaded by stores, garages, business, and apartment houses is a valuable right” (Signaigo v. Begun, 234 Mich. 246); that “the right of privacy for homes is a valuable right,” and “restrictions for residence purposes * * *' are fa vored by definite public policy.” Johnstone v. Railway Co., 245 Mich. 65 (67 A. L. R. 373).

Plaintiffs complain of too much of a good thing. They purchased on executory land contracts two lots in a subdivision known as McGiverin-Haldeman’s Huntington Woods Manor in Oakland county. These lots, in common with…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sanborn v. McLeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Johnstone v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Signaigo v. BegunMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Seymour v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  5. City of Grand Haven v. Grand Haven WaterworksMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Innovation Ventures v. Liquid ManufacturingMichigan Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Adell Broadcasting Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Philco Corp. v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  4. Abbate v. Shelden Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1942
  5. O'CONNER v. BammMichigan Supreme Court · 1953

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