Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Barrow v. City of Detroit Election Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 18, 2013No. Docket No. 316695Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

STEPHENS, E J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority in all respects with regard to Duggan’s nonconstitutional arguments. I write separately to respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the Detroit City Charter’s durational residency requirements.1 Consistent with both Michigan and federal caselaw, on the record that currently exists, I conclude that the durational residency requirements are unconstitutional. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court and order that Duggan’s name be placed on the ballot.

The right…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Doe v. Department of Social ServicesMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Harvey v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Shepherd Montessori Center Milan v. Ann Arbor Charter TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 2010

11 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