Fass v. City of Highland Park
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
On Rehearing.
Sharpe, J.
A rehearing was granted in this case, limiting the question to the constitutionality of the ordinance involved.
The facts in this case are set forth in 320 Mich. 182 and need not be again recited. It does appear, however, that in the court below plaintiffs challenged the validity of the ordinance. The trial court found that the zoning ordinance was constitutional, valid and reasonable'. In our former opinion we said:
“In coming to our conclusions in this controversy we have in mind that plaintiffs did not file a cross appeal, hence the constitutionality of the zoning…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Austin v. OlderMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- City of North Muskegon v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. Muskegon Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- Harrigan & Reid Co. v. BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Morris v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Northwood Properties Co. v. Royal Oak City InspectorMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Rental Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
- Hammond v. Bloomfield Hills Building InspectorMichigan Supreme Court · 1951
- Menendez v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
- Township of Pittsfield v. MalcolmMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.