Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Director of Agriculture Department
This text of 162 N.W.2d 164 (Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Director of Agriculture Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The department of agriculture determined in its judgment that the use of Dieldrin in the eradication of the Japanese beetle, a declared nuisance, was necessary to protect the agricultural crops in the Berrien county area. Under the appropriate statute
The evidence produced before the Court was to the effect that the department of agriculture had made its determination after considering the need and also the effect of such use of Dieldrin. Such a decision is one of discretion left to the wisdom [695]*695and judgment of the Michigan State department of agriculture.
We find no abuse of discretion and, therefore, the writ of mandamus is denied and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is dissolved.
CL 1948, § 286.201 et seq., as amended (Stat Ann 1967 Bey an4 Stat Ann 1968 Cnm Supp § 12.201 et seq.).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
162 N.W.2d 164, 11 Mich. App. 693, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/environmental-defense-fund-inc-v-director-of-agriculture-department-michctapp-1967.