Legal Opinion

Horton v. City of Kalamazoo

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided January 24, 1978No. Docket 77-1376PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant city, through its city commission, furnished legal counsel to defendant Fouts, a city police officer, and agreed to pay his costs in three actions brought by Fouts in the name of the state under the padlock law, MCLA 600.3805; MSA 27A.3805, to abate public nuisances. Plaintiff sued to enjoin the providing of funds and services, sought restitution and an accounting. The trial court held that the expenditures were for a public purpose. From its grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, plaintiff appeals.

The Michigan Constitution forbids a city to loan its credit for a…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Detroit & Howell Railroad v. Township BoardMichigan Supreme Court · 1870
  2. City of Gaylord v. Gaylord City ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Hays v. City of KalamazooMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Skutt v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Three Lakes Ass'n v. WhitingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hess v. Cannon TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. City of Lansing v. Edward Rose Realty, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  3. City of Bay City v. Bay County TreasurerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. City of Lansing v. Edward Rose Realty, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Hess v. Cannon TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API