Legal Opinion

Littell v. Knorr

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 22, 1970No. Docket 6,655PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBronson, J.

Plaintiffs and defendant Knorr are the respective owners of adjoining lots located in Rochester, Michigan. The gist of plaintiffs’ complaint is that they had constructed upon their lot, in addition to a permanent building, a retention wall which ran along the north boundary of the plaintiffs’ property and immediately adjacent to the defendant’s property; that defendant had a building constructed and an asphalt parking lot installed upon his property; that in so building these structures the defendant, without making any provisions for the protection of plaintiffs’ building, undertook to fill…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bain v. FryMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Chapman v. City of Sault Ste. MarieMichigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Tann v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1966
  4. Vance v. Village of PewamoMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Grzelka v. Chevrolet Motor Car Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1999
  2. Williams v. Department of State HighwaysMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Laug v. Ottawa County Road CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
  4. 2000 Baum Family Trust v. BabelMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. Richard Howard v. Glenn Haven Shores AssociationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2018

1 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