Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Township of Casco v. Secretary of State

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 2005No. Docket 126120, 126369Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partYoung, J.

We granted leave to appeal in these consolidated cases to determine whether (1) the Home Rule City Act (HRCA)1 permits the use of a single detachment petition and election when the territory to be detached from a city is to be transferred to more than one township and, (2) if such a procedure is allowed under the HRCA, whether plaintiffs2 are entitled to mandamus relief. I agree with the majority that plaintiffs are not entitled to writs of mandamus because I believe that any request for mandamus relief is premature at this time. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the…

2Cases cited80 opinions

  1. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Wesberry v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Cipriano v. City of HoumaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

75 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