Legal Opinion
Thom v. State Highway Commissioner
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 1965No. Calendar 12, Docket 50,510PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSouris, J.
The organic laws of the State of Michigan always have provided that private property may not he taken for public use without due process of law and compensation. 1 One crucial question involved in the implementation of such organic provisions has been, when is property actually “taken”. This Court has been committed to a liberal interpretation of “taking”, as indicated by this passage from Pearsall v. Eaton County Board of Supervisors (1889), 74 Mich 558, 561, 562 (4 LRA 193):
“The term ‘taking’ should not be used in an unreasonable or narrow sense. It should not be limited to the absolute…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Ashley v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Allen v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- McDowell v. State Highway CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. JarvisMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- City of Pontiac v. CarterMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Spiek v. Department of TransportationMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
- Peterman v. Department of Natural ResourcesMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Hadfield v. Oakland County Drain CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1988
- Thomas E. Foster and Georgia Lee Foster, and Cross-Appellants v. City of Detroit, Michigan, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- Hart v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.