Bolt v. City of Lansing
This text of 626 N.W.2d 394 (Bolt v. City of Lansing) 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.
Opinion
Alexander BOLT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LANSING, Defendant-Appellee.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and this case having been briefed and orally argued by the parties, the order of July 10, 2000, which granted leave to appeal is VACATED and leave to appeal is DENIED because we are no longer persuaded the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
WEAVER, J. (dissenting).
I dissent from the order because I believe this important taxpayers' rights case warrants an opinion. I disagree with the Court of Appeals holding that our first opinion in this matter was entitled only to prospective application. Further, I agree with the conclusion made by then-Judge Markman in his dissenting opinion that effective enforcement of the Headlee Amendment requires that the city of Lansing taxpayers receive full refunds of the illegally collected rain taxes.
MARKMAN, J., not participating.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
626 N.W.2d 394, 464 Mich. 854, 2001 Mich. LEXIS 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolt-v-city-of-lansing-mich-2001.