Alexander v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Alexander v. City of Detroit

242 N.W. 902, 259 Mich. 241, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 954

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1932

DocketDocket No. 156, Calendar No. 36,346.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 N.W. 902 (Alexander v. City of Detroit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. City of Detroit, 242 N.W. 902, 259 Mich. 241, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 954 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant, by condemnation proceedings, acquired the whole of a certain lot for the purpose of opening and widening an avenue. It used only part of the lot for such purpose, leaving unused a five-foot strip between the street and plaintiffs' property. It levied special paving and sidewalk taxes, itself paid the assessment on the five-foot strip and assessed plaintiffs as owners abutting the street. Plaintiffs brought this suit to set aside the assessment, restrain its collection, and for other relief appropriate thereto, and had decree.

The case is ruled by Panfil v. City of Detroit, 246 Mich. 149, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, NORTH, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. SHARPE, J., took no part in this decision. *Page 242

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Defendant, by condemnation proceedings, acquired the whole of a certain lot for the purpose of opening and widening an avenue. It used only part of the lot for such purpose, leaving unused a five-foot strip between the street and plaintiffs' property. It levied special paving and sidewalk taxes, itself paid the assessment on the five-foot strip and assessed plaintiffs as owners abutting the street. Plaintiffs brought this suit to set aside the assessment, restrain its collection, and for other relief appropriate thereto, and had decree.

The case is ruled by Panfil v. City of Detroit, 246 Mich. 149, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, NORTH, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred. SHARPE, J., took no part in this decision. *Page 242

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 N.W. 902, 259 Mich. 241, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-city-of-detroit-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack