Legal Opinion

Howell Township v. Rooto Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 12, 2000No. Docket 115105PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Not long after passing an ordinance, Howell Township confronted a situation that the ordinance would govern. However, that measure, while published, had not yet been recorded in the township’s book of ordinances. In an ensuing lawsuit, the circuit court granted summary disposition to Rooto Corporation, against whom the ordinance was invoked, holding that it was not enforceable because it was unrecorded. The Court of Appeals reversed. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the ordinance is enforceable, and accordingly affirm.

i

In September 1995, Howell Township adopted an ordinance that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cardinal Mooney High School v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Edel v. Filer TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Page v. Klein Tools, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Howell Township v. Rooto Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1999

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bingham Township v. RLTD RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Howell Township v. Rooto CorporationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. People v. SullivanMichigan Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API