Legal Opinion

Danziger v. Village of Bingham Farms

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1961No. Docket 87, Calendar 48,845PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSouris, J.

in the court below plaintiffs attacked the ■ residential zoning restrictions imposed upon their property by the defendant village. Near the end of the first day of testimony, plaintiffs’ trial counsel indicated he had 1 more witness for the next day in the following manner:

“We are, in a sense of speaking, at a point where we can’t proceed further. We have 1 more witness, but that witness is not here and there is a probability that he will be here tomorrow. But the hour is late and I know that we are here ready to proceed, and if we can’t proceed, then the defendant should have [its]…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Deneen v. Houghton County Street-Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Pear v. GrahamMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Davis v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Mintz v. SouleMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Reed v. Burton Abstract & Title Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1955

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Roberson v. ThomasMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
  2. Granger v. LundbergMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API