Mark Gottleber v. County of Saginaw

Michigan Supreme Court

Mark Gottleber v. County of Saginaw

927 N.W.2d 224, 503 Mich. 1034

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 28, 2019

DocketSC: 158301; COA: 336011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 927 N.W.2d 224 (Mark Gottleber v. County of Saginaw) 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

Mark Gottleber v. County of Saginaw, 927 N.W.2d 224, 503 Mich. 1034 (Mich. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of an argument made by the defendant but not directly addressed by that court during its initial review of this case regarding whether the defendant had a legal duty or obligation to continue pumping and draining water on its land in order to sustain a particular groundwater level for the benefit of the plaintiffs' property. If it is determined on remand that the defendant owed no such duty or obligation, the Court of Appeals should also consider whether the defendant "abused its legitimate powers" when it took "affirmative actions" in the absence of any duty or obligation that potentially were "directly aimed at the plaintiff[s'] property." See Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich. App. 264 , 295, 769 N.W.2d 234 (2009). 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.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of an argument made by the defendant but not directly addressed by that court during its initial review of this case regarding whether the defendant had a legal duty or obligation to continue pumping and draining water on its land in order to sustain a particular groundwater level for the benefit of the plaintiffs' property. If it is determined on remand that the defendant owed no such duty or obligation, the Court of Appeals should also consider whether the defendant "abused its legitimate powers" when it took "affirmative actions" in the absence of any duty or obligation that potentially were "directly aimed at the plaintiff[s'] property." See Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich. App. 264 , 295, 769 N.W.2d 234 (2009). 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.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 N.W.2d 224, 503 Mich. 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-gottleber-v-county-of-saginaw-mich-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack