Porter v. City of Highland Park
This text of 724 N.W.2d 282 (Porter v. City of Highland Park) 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.
Opinion
Linsey PORTER, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, Respondent-Appellee.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
*283 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, albeit for a different reason. I find it unnecessary to address whether § 21(1)(q) of the Local Government Fiscal Responsibility Act, MCL 141.1221(1)(q), has retroactive effect because I believe that the then-applicable provisions of § 21 of the act, in conjunction with § 5c(b) of the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.5c(b), afforded the emergency financial manager the authority to undertake the action that is in dispute in this case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
724 N.W.2d 282, 477 Mich. 963, 2006 Mich. LEXIS 3004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-city-of-highland-park-mich-2006.