Legal Opinion

Holton v. Ward

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided January 23, 2014No. Docket No. 308454PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SAAD, EJ.

In this alleged riparian rights case, plaintiffs, James and Nancy Holton, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant, Carole Ward. Defendant cross-appeals because the trial court declined to hold that plaintiffs’ lawsuit was frivolous and, therefore, denied defendant’s motion for sanctions. Because plaintiffs have no riparian rights to the man-made body of water at issue, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition. And because plaintiffs’ suit is frivolous, we reverse the trial court’s refusal to grant sanctions.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of RegentsMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Monat v. State Farm InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Estes v. TitusMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Latham v. Barton Malow Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2008

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Genesee County Drain Commissioner v. Genesee CountyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. William Beaumont Hospital v. WassMichigan Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. David Herr v. United States Forest Serv.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
  4. Herr v. United States Forest ServiceDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2016
  5. Anne M Winthrop v. Laura Hines DeckMichigan Court of Appeals · 2019

16 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