Northwood Apartments v. Max Lavalley, Thomas Sommerville and City of Royal Oak

Sixth Circuit

Northwood Apartments v. Max Lavalley, Thomas Sommerville and City of Royal Oak

673 F.2d 159, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20973

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1982

Docket79-1536

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 673 F.2d 159 (Northwood Apartments v. Max Lavalley, Thomas Sommerville and City of Royal Oak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northwood Apartments v. Max Lavalley, Thomas Sommerville and City of Royal Oak, 673 F.2d 159, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20973 (6th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action seeking money damages filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by Northwood Apartments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Northwood, a co-partnership that owned an apartment building in Royal Oak, Michigan, alleged that the defendants had denied it federal due process and its equal protection right to free access to the courts in assessing the apartment for real estate taxes. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, or on the ground that it must abstain for reasons of comity.

On Northwood’s appeal, this court reversed and remanded to the district court, holding that the Tax Injunction Act was not a bar and that there was no legal basis to abstain. Northwood Apartments v. Max LaValley et a1, 649 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1981).

On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court, by order entered December 14, 1981, vacated the judgment of this court and remanded “for further consideration in the light of Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981).”

In McNary the issue was, as stated by the Court, “[wjhether a damages action may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system.” At ---, at 178. The Court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the Tax Injunction Act presented a bar to the damage action since in any event, under principles of comity, abstention is required.

It therefore appears that this court erred in holding that abstention is improper and in reversing the district court for dismissing on that basis.

*160 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of this court reversing the judgment of the district court be and the same is hereby vacated.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action seeking money damages filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by Northwood Apartments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Northwood, a co-partnership that owned an apartment building in Royal Oak, Michigan, alleged that the defendants had denied it federal due process and its equal protection right to free access to the courts in assessing the apartment for real estate taxes. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the action was barred by the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, or on the ground that it must abstain for reasons of comity.

On Northwood’s appeal, this court reversed and remanded to the district court, holding that the Tax Injunction Act was not a bar and that there was no legal basis to abstain. Northwood Apartments v. Max LaValley et a1, 649 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1981).

On petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court, by order entered December 14, 1981, vacated the judgment of this court and remanded “for further consideration in the light of Fair Assessment in Real Estate Association, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. ---, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981).”

In McNary the issue was, as stated by the Court, “[wjhether a damages action may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system.” At ---, at 178. The Court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the Tax Injunction Act presented a bar to the damage action since in any event, under principles of comity, abstention is required.

It therefore appears that this court erred in holding that abstention is improper and in reversing the district court for dismissing on that basis.

*160 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of this court reversing the judgment of the district court be and the same is hereby vacated.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 F.2d 159, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwood-apartments-v-max-lavalley-thomas-sommerville-and-city-of-royal-ca6-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack