In Re Collier, 743 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. 2008). · Go Syfert
In Re Collier, 743 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the zoning board of appeals did not have jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's substantive due process and takings claims.”
37 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Karen Connell v. Lima Township (michctapp, 2021-03-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Karen Connell v. Lima Township
Mich. Ct. App. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the zoning board of appeals did not have jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's substantive due process and takings claims.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Stanislaw v. Thetford Twp., Mich.
6th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
But in Houdini, the circuit court similarly purported to “rule[] on the plaintiff’s taking[s] claim” in affirming the ZBA’s decision. 743 N.W.2d at 200 (Corrigan, J., dissenting).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jon Jon's Inc. v. City of Warren (4×)
6th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. at 199 (Corrigan, J., dissenting). 1 The plaintiff challenged the designation before the ZBA, which denied his application for a variance.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Get Back Up, Inc. v. City of Detroit (7×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Mich. · 2012 · confidence medium
Id. at 199 (Corrigan, J. dissenting). 9 The zoning board denied the variance and the plaintiff appealed that decision to the Wayne County Circuit Court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Beatrice Shanel COLLIER and Markia Raja Miller, Minors. Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Cordellia Miller, a/k/a Cordellia Collier, Respondent-Appellant.
135552.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Jan 18, 2008.
743 N.W.2d 198

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2007 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.