Rosenthal v. Triangle Development Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Sanborn v. McLeanMichigan Supreme Court · 1925
- Johnstone v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928
- Signaigo v. BegunMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Seymour v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling MillsMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- City of Grand Haven v. Grand Haven WaterworksMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Innovation Ventures v. Liquid ManufacturingMichigan Supreme Court · 2016
- Adell Broadcasting Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- Philco Corp. v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
- Abbate v. Shelden Land Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1942
- O'CONNER v. BammMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.