Vashi v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield, Michigan

74 F. App'x 575
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 5, 2003
DocketNo. 01-2012
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F. App'x 575 (Vashi v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield, Michigan) 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
Vashi v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield, Michigan, 74 F. App'x 575 (6th Cir. 2003).

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Plaintiffs Aditi and Rakesh Vashi, who are husband and wife, appeal from an order of summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of defendants, the Charter Township of West Bloomfield, Michigan, and several individuals who sit on the Township’s Planning Commission. Plaintiffs alleged that certain rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, including their right to equal protection, had been infringed by the Planning Commission when it recommended that their application to operate a daycare center in a local church not be approved. Because it concluded that plaintiffs had failed to obtain a final decision as required by Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), and as construed by this court in Bannum, Inc. v. City of Louisville, 958 F.2d 1354 (6th Cir.1992), and Bigelow v. Michigan Dep’t of Nat. Res., 970 F.2d 154 (6th Cir.1992), the district court granted judgment to defendants and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.

Having had the benefit of briefing and of oral argument, we discern no error in the reasoning of the district court. Furthermore, because that court set forth its analysis at length in a published opinion, Vashi v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield, 159 F.Supp.2d 608 (E.D.Mich.2001), we believe that no useful purpose would be served by reiterating that reasoning here.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Related

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
387 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co.
449 U.S. 232 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.
457 U.S. 496 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Franklin v. Massachusetts
505 U.S. 788 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club
523 U.S. 726 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bannum, Inc. v. City of Louisville, Kentucky
958 F.2d 1354 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
Dalton v. Specter
511 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Vashi v. Charter Township of West Bloomfield
159 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D. Michigan, 2001)
Herrington v. County of Sonoma
834 F.2d 1488 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Bigelow v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
970 F.2d 154 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
Crist v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
489 U.S. 1090 (Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F. App'x 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vashi-v-charter-township-of-west-bloomfield-michigan-ca6-2003.