Hyde Park Cooperative v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Hyde Park Cooperative v. City of Detroit

DecidedApril 26, 2013

Docket146116

StatusPublished

This text of Hyde Park Cooperative v. City of Detroit (Hyde Park Cooperative 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

Hyde Park Cooperative v. City of Detroit, (Mich. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

April 26, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

146116 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack HYDE PARK COOPERATIVE, VILLAGE David F. Viviano, CENTER ASSOCIATES LIMITED DIVIDEND Justices HOUSING ASSOCIATION, BOWIN PLACE ASSOCIATES LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE TOWER ASSOCIATES LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, FENIMORE LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, MILLENDER CENTER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLYMOUTH SQUARE LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, and FOUNTAIN COURT CONSUMER HOUSING COOPERATIVE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SC: 146116 COA: 303143 Wayne CC: 10-005687-CZ CITY OF DETROIT and BUILDINGS AND SAFETY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE footnote 5 of the Court of Appeals judgment because the issue was not properly before the Court of Appeals nor necessary to its decision. Moreover, we note that a claim for “money damages” such as the one rejected by this Court in Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 191-197 (2007), is not identical to an action for a refund of an allegedly unlawful exaction. See, e.g., Beachlawn Building Corporation v City of St. Clair Shores, 370 Mich 128 (1963); Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. April 26, 2013 _________________________________________ p0423 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

April 26, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

146116 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack HYDE PARK COOPERATIVE, VILLAGE David F. Viviano, CENTER ASSOCIATES LIMITED DIVIDEND Justices HOUSING ASSOCIATION, BOWIN PLACE ASSOCIATES LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE TOWER ASSOCIATES LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, FENIMORE LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, MILLENDER CENTER ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLYMOUTH SQUARE LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSOCIATION, and FOUNTAIN COURT CONSUMER HOUSING COOPERATIVE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v SC: 146116 COA: 303143 Wayne CC: 10-005687-CZ CITY OF DETROIT and BUILDINGS AND SAFETY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE footnote 5 of the Court of Appeals judgment because the issue was not properly before the Court of Appeals nor necessary to its decision. Moreover, we note that a claim for “money damages” such as the one rejected by this Court in Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 191-197 (2007), is not identical to an action for a refund of an allegedly unlawful exaction. See, e.g., Beachlawn Building Corporation v City of St. Clair Shores, 370 Mich 128 (1963); Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. April 26, 2013 _________________________________________ p0423 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hyde Park Cooperative v. City of Detroit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyde-park-cooperative-v-city-of-detroit-mich-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack