Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of South Haven v. Van Buren County Board of Commissioners

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 2007No. Docket 131011Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.

{concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that defendants’ millage proposals violated MCL 224.20b. However, I disagree that no remedy exists for the violations. I would hold that an equitable remedy is available, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

*536THE GOVERNING STATUTORY PROVISIONS

I begin, as is appropriate, with the language of the statute. The taxes in this case were levied under the authority of MCL 224.20b. It provides:(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the board of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Saffian v. SimmonsMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Haynes v NeshewatMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Apsey v. Memorial HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Fluor Enterprises, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 2007

10 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