Newman Equities v. CHARTER TP. OF MERIDIAN

Michigan Supreme Court

Newman Equities v. CHARTER TP. OF MERIDIAN

705 N.W.2d 111, 474 Mich. 911, 2005 Mich. LEXIS 2220

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 2, 2005

Docket127533

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 705 N.W.2d 111 (Newman Equities v. CHARTER TP. OF MERIDIAN) 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

Newman Equities v. CHARTER TP. OF MERIDIAN, 705 N.W.2d 111, 474 Mich. 911, 2005 Mich. LEXIS 2220 (Mich. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

705 N.W.2d 111 (2005) 474 Mich. 911

NEWMAN EQUITIES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 127533. COA No. 248722.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

November 2, 2005.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals opinion but AFFIRM the result on alternative grounds. Contrary to the view expressed *112 by the Court of Appeals majority, the court may not consider whether there is a "legitimate difference of opinion" regarding the reasonableness of two zoning schemes. Instead, the court must determine that the zoning approved by the referendum is unreasonable. See, e.g., Kropf v. Sterling Heights, 391 Mich. 139, 156-157, 215 N.W.2d 179 (1974).

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

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

705 N.W.2d 111 (2005) 474 Mich. 911

NEWMAN EQUITIES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 127533. COA No. 248722.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

November 2, 2005.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals opinion but AFFIRM the result on alternative grounds. Contrary to the view expressed *112 by the Court of Appeals majority, the court may not consider whether there is a "legitimate difference of opinion" regarding the reasonableness of two zoning schemes. Instead, the court must determine that the zoning approved by the referendum is unreasonable. See, e.g., Kropf v. Sterling Heights, 391 Mich. 139, 156-157, 215 N.W.2d 179 (1974).

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 N.W.2d 111, 474 Mich. 911, 2005 Mich. LEXIS 2220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-equities-v-charter-tp-of-meridian-mich-2005.

Opinion

NEWMAN EQUITIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

NEWMAN EQUITIES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN, Defendant-Appellee.