Little v. Kin, 664 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Little v. Kin, 664 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 19× by 15 distinct cases, 2007–2026 · 2 courts↑ Rising · …where the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted. at p. 700 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 12× by 12 distinct cases, 2005–2026 · 2 courts↑ Rising · …if the text of the easement is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered by the trial court in order to determine the scope of the easement. at p. 700 ✓ Topic ↗
211 citation events (211 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matthew Barnard v. Jg Pray's Subdivision Homeowners Association (michctapp, 2026-04-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Matthew Barnard v. Jg Pray's Subdivision Homeowners Association
Mich. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if the text of the easement is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered by the trial court in order to determine the scope of the easement.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Linda S Manley v. Sue Pikulski (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mich. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
where the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Cyber Solutions International, LLC v. Pro Marketing Sales, Inc. (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
6th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Willienard Banks v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield, Mich.
6th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
Little v. Kin, 664 N.W.2d 749, 750 (Mich. 2003).
cited Cited "see" Anthony L Woodmansee v. William Schmidt
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Little, 468 Mich at 700 .
cited Cited "see" Thomas Byrne v. Rodney Grandfield
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700 ; 664 NW2d 749 (2003).
cited Cited "see" Ralph Steven Smith v. Joseph W Straughn
Mich. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Little, 468 Mich at 700 ; Three Lakes, 91 Mich App at 377-378 .
cited Cited "see" Robert Pichulo v. Buckeye Pipeline Company Lp
Mich. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 700-701 .
cited Cited "see" Ruben Torres v. William Ten Eyck
Mich. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Little, 468 Mich at 700 .
discussed Cited "see" Wiggins v. City of Burton
Mich. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700 ; 664 NW2d 749 (2003); Anglers of the AuSable, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 283 Mich App 115, 129-130 ; 770 NW2d 359 (2009), rev’d in part on other grounds 488 Mich 69 (2010).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pasionek v. Pasionek
E.D. Mich. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 703 N.W.2d 23, 30 (Mich. 2005); see also Little v. Kin, 664 N.W.2d 749, 750 (Mich. 2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." William E Marcus Trust v. Chad Apap (2×)
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Minerva Partners, Ltd v First Passage, LLC, 274 Mich App 207, 218 ; 731 NW2d 472 (2007); see also Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700 ; 664 NW2d 749 (2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Angelo T Armstrong v. Nick Gary
Mich. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Minerva Partners, Ltd v First Passage, LLC, 274 Mich App 207, 218 ; 731 NW2d 472 (2007); see also Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700 ; 664 NW2d 749 (2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mark a Brown Trust v. William T Kussy Jr
Mich. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Little, 468 Mich at 701 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." William E Marcus Trust v. Chad Apap
Mich. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700 ; 664 NW2d 749 (2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." William E Marcus Trust v. Chad Apap
Mich. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700 ; 664 NW2d 749 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Little
v.
Kin
Docket 121037.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Jul 9, 2003.
664 N.W.2d 749
Berry & Reynolds PC (by David W. Berry and Ronald E. Reynolds) for the plaintiffs-appellants., Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco, P.C. (by William H. Horton, Mark E. Wilson, and Kaveh Kashef), for the defendants-appellees., Amicus Curiae:, Law, Weathers & Richardson, P.C. (by Clifford H. Bloom), for the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc.
Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Markman, Kelly.
Cited by 64 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 57%
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)
Memorandum Opinion.

We granted leave to appeal to consider the scope of defendants’ easement “for access to and use of the riparian rights to Pine Lake.” 467 Mich 899 (2002). Having reviewed the issues involved, we agree with the judgment of the Court of Appeals. [1]

However, we write briefly to clarify the trial court’s duties on remand.

First, the trial court must determine whether the easement contemplates the construction and maintenance of a dock by defendants. In answering this question, the trial court shall begin by examining the text of the easement. Where the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted. See, e.g., Gawrylak v Cowie, 350 Mich 679, 683; 86 NW2d 809 (1957). If the text of the easement is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered by the trial court in order to determine the scope of the easement. [2]

[*701] If the easement grants defendants the right to construct or maintain a dock, the trial court must determine whether the particular dock at issue is permissible under the law of easements. Under our well-established easement jurisprudence, the dominant estate may not make improvements to the servient estate if such improvements are unnecessary for the effective use of the easement or they unreasonably burden the servient tenement. Crew's Die Casting Corp v Davidow, 369 Mich 541; 120 NW2d 238 (1963); Unverzagt v Miller, 306 Mich 260, 265; 10 NW2d 849 (1943); Mumrow v Riddle, 67 Mich App 693, 700; 242 NW2d 489 (1976). Accordingly, if the trial court concludes that the easement grants defendants the right to construct or maintain a dock, it must then determine (1) whether the dock is necessary for defendants’ effective use of their easement and (2) whether the dock unreasonably burdens plaintiffs’ servient estate.

To the extent consistent with this opinion, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Corrigan, C.J., and Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, and Markman, JJ., concurred. Kelly, J., concurred in the result only.
2

We note that the Court of Appeals stated that “in deciding the scope of defendants’ rights under the easement, the trial court must consider the language in the easement itself and the circumstances existing at the time of the grant. . . .” 249 Mich App 514 (emphasis added). This directive is[*701] clearly inconsistent with the well-established principles of legal interpretation as stated above and is thus incorrect.