simple rule in Michigan

2024Id. at 862 .

2023Gordon, 197 Mich at 241 .

2016For example, in City of Ferndale v Ealand (On Remand), 92 Mich App 88, 90 ; 286 NW2d 688 (1979), the city of Ferndale enacted an ordinance allowing for the operation of adult businesses in a C-2 district so long as it was not within 1,000 feet of any residential type dwelling, but allowing for a waiver of the footage requirement under certain circumstances.

2016For example, in City of Ferndale v Ealand (On Remand), 92 Mich App 88, 90 ; 286 NW2d 688 (1979), the city of Ferndale enacted an ordinance allowing for the operation of adult businesses in a C-2 district so long as it was not within 1,000 feet of any residential type dwelling, but allowing for a waiver of the footage requirement under certain circumstances.

2016The essence of plaintiff’s claim is that “Section 18.50C of Livonia’s zoning ordinance violates a simple rule: ‘We know from our precedents that a community cannot effectively zone out legal businesses.’ Truckor v Erie Twp, 283 Mich App 154, 164 ; 771 NW2d 1 (2009).” In Truckor, a case reviewing plaintiffs’ claims that an adult entertainment ordinance violated their First Amendment right to free speech, this Court stated: We know from our precedents that a community cannot effectively zone out legal businesses.

2016The essence of plaintiff’s claim is that “Section 18.50C of Livonia’s zoning ordinance violates a simple rule: ‘We know from our precedents that a community cannot effectively zone out legal businesses.’ Truckor v Erie Twp, 283 Mich App 154, 164 ; 771 NW2d 1 (2009).” In Truckor, a case reviewing plaintiffs’ claims that an adult entertainment ordinance violated their First Amendment right to free speech, this Court stated: We know from our precedents that a community cannot effectively zone out legal businesses.

1984Although Vaca, supra, and Lowe, supra, appear to set forth a simple rule, they have engendered much debate over the requisite evidentiary proofs and burdens, especially as regards union enforcement of grievance procedures embodied in collective-bargaining agreements.

1984Although Vaca, supra, and Lowe, supra, appear to set forth a simple rule, they have engendered much debate over the requisite evidentiary proofs and burdens, especially as regards union enforcement of grievance procedures embodied in collective-bargaining agreements.

1984Although Vaca, supra, and Lowe, supra, appear to set forth a simple rule, they have engendered much debate over the requisite evidentiary proofs and burdens, especially as regards union enforcement of grievance procedures embodied in collective-bargaining agreements.

1984Although Vaca, supra, and Lowe, supra, appear to set forth a simple rule, they have engendered much debate over the requisite evidentiary proofs and burdens, especially as regards union enforcement of grievance procedures embodied in collective-bargaining agreements.

1983The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award based on that failure to disclose, stating that: "We can perceive no way in which the effectiveness of the arbitration process will be hampered by the simple requirement that arbitrators disclose to the parties any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias.” Commonwealth, supra, p 149 ; 89 S Ct 339 ; 21 L Ed 2d 305 .

1983Commonwealth, supra, p 149 ; 89 S Ct 339 ; 21 L Ed 2d 305 .

1976As Justice Levin recognized in People v Ivory Thomas, supra: "Freed of the difficulty that can be caused by use of the terms ’res gestae’ and 'spontaneous,’ this exception, the 'excited utterance’ exception, stands clear as the simple principle which Wigmore originally enunciated, i.e., when a person participates in a startling or shocking experience, the emotional excitement generated in him may render him unable or unlikely to fabricate concerning his experience.

1976As Justice LEVIN recognized in People v Ivory Thomas, supra : "Freed of the difficulty that can be caused by use of the terms `res gestae' and `spontaneous,' this exception, the `excited utterance' exception, stands clear as the simple principle which Wigmore originally enunciated, i.e., when a person participates in a startling or shocking experience, the emotional excitement generated in him may render him unable or unlikely to fabricate concerning his experience.

1975People v Timothy Washington, 43 Mich App 150 ; 203 NW2d 744 (1972), People v King, 51 Mich App 788 ; 216 NW2d 76 (1974).

1975People v Timothy Washington, 43 Mich App 150 ; 203 NW2d 744 (1972), People v King, 51 Mich App 788 ; 216 NW2d 76 (1974).

1975People v Timothy Washington, 43 Mich App 150 ; 203 NW2d 744 (1972), People v King, 51 Mich App 788 ; 216 NW2d 76 (1974).

1975People v Timothy Washington, 43 Mich App 150 ; 203 NW2d 744 (1972), People v King, 51 Mich App 788 ; 216 NW2d 76 (1974).

1973Loper v Beto, 405 US 473 ; 92 S Ct 1014 ; 31 L Ed 2d 374 (1972).

1973Loper v Beto, 405 US 473 ; 92 S Ct 1014 ; 31 L Ed 2d 374 (1972).

1968The rule under which this is done is. a simple rule of justice.” The above quotation was approved and applied in the subsequent case of Kittinger v. Kittinger (1947), 319 Mich 145, 151 .

1968It operates where there is no duty, other than one imposed by the conscience of the law ex aequo et bono. 17 The simple principle, formulated centuries ago, oft-quoted, recently by our Supreme Court in Ollig v. Eagles, supra, p 53 , may properly be' here applied: “ ‘For this by nature is equitable, that no one be made richer through another’s loss.’ ” The trial judge found the enhancement in value resulting from plaintiff’s repairs to be $5,500.

1968It operates where there is no duty, other than one imposed by the conscience of the law ex aequo et bono. [17] The simple principle, formulated centuries ago, oft-quoted, recently by our Supreme Court in Ollig v. Eagles, supra, p 53 , may properly be here applied: "`For this by nature is equitable, that no one be made richer through another's loss.'" The trial judge found the enhancement in value resulting from plaintiff's repairs to be $5,500.

1947The rule under which this is done is a simple rule of justice. ’ ’ This principle was recognized in Robb v. Shephard, 50 Mich. 189 .

1929Dec. 705 ). early announced: “A simple rule is, to regard cash dividends, however large, as income, and stock dividends, however made, as capital.” This may fairly be said to be the rule adopted by the English courts, and by the supreme court of the United States (Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549 [10 *422 Sup. Ct. 1057], reaffirmed in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418 [38 Sup. Ct. 158, L.

1929Dec. 705 ). early announced: “A simple rule is, to regard cash dividends, however large, as income, and stock dividends, however made, as capital.” This may fairly be said to be the rule adopted by the English courts, and by the supreme court of the United States (Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549 [10 *422 Sup. Ct. 1057], reaffirmed in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. S. 418 [38 Sup. Ct. 158, L.

1916Kalbach v. Clark, 133 Iowa, 215 ( 110 N. W. 599 , 12 L.

1916Kalbach v. Clark, 133 Iowa, 215 ( 110 N. W. 599 , 12 L.

1884The rule under which this is done is a simple rule of justice: Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co. 41 Mich. 453 ; De Mill v. Moffat 49 Mich. 125 ; and the cases must be rare in which it can be applied in behalf of the State against its citizens, when it is seeking to collect its revenues, unless the citizen is attempting some fraud upon the law, or some evasion of its provisions.

1884The rule under which this is done is a simple rule of justice: Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co. 41 Mich. 453 ; De Mill v. Moffat 49 Mich. 125 ; and the cases must be rare in which it can be applied in behalf of the State against its citizens, when it is seeking to collect its revenues, unless the citizen is attempting some fraud upon the law, or some evasion of its provisions.