Papadelis v. City of Troy, 733 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Papadelis v. City of Troy, 733 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“o provisions of the rtfa or any published generally accepted agricultural and management practice address the . . . location of buildings used for greenhouse.”
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kevin Lamb v. Scott Crofoot (ca6, 2025-11-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Kevin Lamb v. Scott Crofoot
6th Cir. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
o provisions of the rtfa or any published generally accepted agricultural and management practice address the . . . location of buildings used for greenhouse.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dowdy (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mich. · 2011 · confidence medium
In fact, for more than 160 years, the Court has defined “domicile” as a person’s “permanent home.”19 This definition is consistent with Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed), which defines “domicile” as “the place at which a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home; a person’s true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere.” As the majority acknowledges, the terms “domicile” and “residence” have often been used interchangeably and synonymously.20 In Camp…
discussed Cited "see" Lima Township v. Ernest K Bateson
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Papadelis v City of Troy, 478 Mich 934, 934 ; 733 NW2d 397 (2007) (holding that the municipality could enforce its ordinances regulating the construction of a greenhouse because no part of the Right to Farm Act or accepted agricultural practices addressed the permitting, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of buildings used for greenhouses).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gust PAPADELIS, Niki Papadelis, Telly's Greenhouse and Garden Center, Inc., and Telly's Nursery LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF TROY, Mark Stimac, and Marlene Struckman, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
132366.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Jun 29, 2007.
733 N.W.2d 397
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgments of the Oakland Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals to the extent that they hold that the Right to Farm Act, MCL 286.471 et seq. (RTFA), and the State Construction Code, MCL 125.1502a(f), exempt the plaintiffs from the defendant city's ordinances governing the permitting, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of structures used in the plaintiffs' greenhouse operations. Assuming that the plaintiffs' acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance[*398] to make agricultural use of the north parcel (a point on which we express no opinion, in light of the defendant city's failure to exhaust all available avenues of appeal from that ruling after the remand to the Oakland Circuit Court in the prior action, see City of Troy v. Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich.App. 90, 572 N.W.2d 246 (1997)), the plaintiffs' structures remain subject to applicable building permit, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location requirements under the defendant city's ordinances. The plaintiffs' greenhouses and pole barn are not "incidental to the use for agricultural purposes of the land" on which they are located within the meaning of MCL 125.1502a(f). As no provisions of the RTFA or any published generally accepted agricultural and management practice address the permitting, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of buildings used for greenhouse or related agricultural purposes, no conflict exists between the RTFA and the defendant city's ordinances regulating such matters that would preclude their enforcement under the facts of this case. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. In all other respects, the applications are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.