395.Poletown.v.Detroit

395.Poletown.v.Detro - Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit Supreme Court of Michigan 410 Mich 616 304 N.W.2d 455 March 3 1981 Argued

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit Supreme Court of Michigan 410 Mich. 616; 304 N.W.2d 455 March 3, 1981, Argued March 13, 1981, Decided SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Ryan Filed April 20, 1981. DISPOSITION: The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. COUNSEL: Sylvester Delaney, Acting Corporation Counsel, by Joseph N. Baltimore, and Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn, by Jason L. Honigman, William G. Christopher, and Norman C. Ankers, Special Counsel, for the City of Detroit. Lewis, White, Clay & Graves, P.C., by David Baker Lewis, Eric L. Clay, and Victoria A. Roberts, General Counsel, for the Detroit Economic Development Corporation. JUDGES: Chief Justice Coleman, and Justices Kavanagh, Williams, Levin, and Blair Moody, Jr., concurred. Justices Fitzgerald and Ryan, (dissenting). Justice Ryan, (dissenting). OPINION BY: Per Curiam OPINION [1] This case arises out of a plan by the Detroit Economic Development Corporation too acquire, by condemnation if necessary, a large tract of land to be conveyed to General Motors Corporation as a site for construction of an assembly plant. The plaintiffs, a neighborhood association and several individual residents of the affected area, brought suit in Wayne Circuit Court to challenge the project on a number of grounds, not all of which have been argued to this Court. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied pending trial on a single question of fact: whether, under 1980 PA 87; MCL 213.51 et seq.; MSA 8.265(1) et seq., the city abused its discretion in determining that condemnation of plaintiffs' property was necessary to complete the project. [2] The trial lasted 10 days and resulted in a judgment for defendants and an order on December 9, 1980, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs filed a claim of 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
appeal with the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1980, and an application for bypass with this Court on December 15, 1980. [3] We granted a motion for immediate consideration and an application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals to consider the following questions: [4] Does the use of eminent domain in this case constitute a taking of private property for private use and, therefore, contravene Const 1963, art 10, § 2? [5] Did the court below err in ruling that cultural, social and historical institutions were not protected by the Michigan Environmental Protection Act? [6] We conclude that these questions must be answered in the negative and affirm the trial court's decision. I [7] This case raises a question of paramount importance to the future welfare of this state and its residents: Can a municipality use the power of eminent domain granted to it by the Economic Development Corporations Act, MCL 125.1601 et seq., MSA 5.3520(1) et seq ., to condemn property for transfer to a private corporation to build a plant to promote industry and commerce, thereby adding jobs and taxes to the economic base of the municipality and state? [8]
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 07/27/2009 for the course 220 395 taught by Professor Perry,m during the Spring '08 term at Rutgers.

Page1 / 12

395.Poletown.v.Detro - Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit Supreme Court of Michigan 410 Mich 616 304 N.W.2d 455 March 3 1981 Argued

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online