Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Heath Township v. Sall

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1993No. 92479, (Calendar No. 3)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, J.

i

While I agree with the majority that no nonconforming use was established by defendants’ construction, I would also hold that defendants did not possess a nonconforming use because the citizens of the municipality, by filing a petition and reversing the zoning designation pursuant to MCL 125.282; MSA 5.2963(12), precluded the establishment of the property expectations and good faith necessary to constitute a nonconforming use. To hold otherwise would eviscerate the statute by permitting developers to circumvent its requirements by quickly engaging in construction sufficient to establish a…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Austin v. OlderMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. City of Lansing v. DawleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Gackler Land Co. v. Yankee Springs TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Stadle v. Township of Battle CreekMichigan Supreme Court · 1956

9 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