Sabo v. Monroe Township
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.
In each of the three cases which, although separately submitted, are being decided today, the plaintiffs seek to use land zoned single family residence (Sabo and Nickola) or agricultural (Smookler) to construct a mobile-home park.
I write separately because I do not agree, in Nickola 1 and Smookler; 2 that on proof that a community has excluded a legitimate use, here mobile-home parks, it necessarily becomes obliged to grant a request for rezoning to permit that use. The land sought to be rezoned may not be suitable for development for the excluded use. In Sabo I do not agree that the failure…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
- Kropf v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
- Kozesnik v. Township of MontgomerySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
- Christine Building Co. v. City of TroyMichigan Supreme Court · 1962
- Udell v. HaasNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Kirk v. Tyrone TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of KentwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
- Nickola v. Grand Blanc TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
- Landon Holdings, Inc v. Grattan TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
- Smookler v. Wheatfield TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.