Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Thompson v. Enz

Thompson v. Enz

154 N.W.2d 473, 379 Mich. 667, 1967 Mich. LEXIS 110
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 4, 1967
DocketCalendar 6, Docket 51,479
StatusPublished
Cited by61 cases

This text of 154 N.W.2d 473 (Thompson v. Enz) 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
Thompson v. Enz, 154 N.W.2d 473, 379 Mich. 667, 1967 Mich. LEXIS 110 (Mich. 1967).

Opinions

T. M. Kavanagh, J.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Barry county circuit court against defendants claiming violation of their rights as riparian owners on Gun lake and seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were granted the relief requested.

Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and directed that summary judgment be entered for defendants.

Leave to appeal to this Court was granted.

This case concerns certain property rights in and around Gun lake, which is situated partly in Barry county and partly in Allegan county. The parties agree that this lake has approximately 2,680 acres of surface area and approximately 30 miles of shoreline.

The defendant corporation is a contract purchaser of a riparian parcel of land having approximately 1,415 feet of frontage on said lake, and the individual [675]*675defendants are the sole stockholders of the corporation.

Plaintiffs are riparian owners of other property abutting Gun lake.

The State of Michigan sought and was granted permission in the trial court to file a brief amicus curiae. The State is a riparian owner of a large parcel of land abutting the lake.

Defendants are in the process of developing and subdividing their parcel of land into from 144 to 153 lots. Of these lots, approximately 16 will abut on the natural shoreline of the lake. The remainder of the lots will front on canals. To give the back lot purchasers access to the lake the defendants’ plan calls for excavating across riparian lots Nos. 13 and 76. (See attached plat.)

[676]*676 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

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

Related

Mv Hale LLC v. Christopher Muldoon
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2023
Thomas Byrne v. Rodney Grandfield
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2022
William E Marcus Trust v. Chad Apap
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2022
Waterfront Petroleum Terminal Company v. DETROIT BULK STORAGE
E.D. Michigan, 2021
Thomas Haan v. Lake Doster Lake Association
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2020
Michele Shaughnessy v. Unknown Owners of Property
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2019
David Herr v. United States Forest Serv.
865 F.3d 351 (Sixth Circuit, 2017)
Kenneth Pollack v. Jeffrey B Fraser
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
Herr v. United States Forest Service
212 F. Supp. 3d 720 (W.D. Michigan, 2016)
Lake Adrian Developers LLC v. City of Adrian
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015
Holton v. Ward
847 N.W.2d 1 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2014)
ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
488 Mich. 69 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2010)
2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel
793 N.W.2d 633 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2010)
Persell v. Wertz
791 N.W.2d 494 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2010)
Civic Ass'n of Hammond Lake v. Hammond Lake Estates No 3 Lots 126-135
721 N.W.2d 801 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2006)
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc
709 N.W.2d 174 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2006)
Dyball v. Lennox
680 N.W.2d 522 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2004)
Little v. Kin
644 N.W.2d 375 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2002)
Stupak-Thrall v. Glickman
988 F. Supp. 1055 (W.D. Michigan, 1997)
Stupak-Thrall v. United States
89 F.3d 1269 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 N.W.2d 473, 379 Mich. 667, 1967 Mich. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-enz-mich-1967.