City of South Haven v. Van Buren County Board of Commissioners
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Saffian v. SimmonsMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Haynes v NeshewatMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Apsey v. Memorial HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Fluor Enterprises, Inc v. Department of TreasuryMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.