Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Township of Garfield v. Younggreen2 sentences2016The question in each case is one of fact, and in each case we must consider the facts peculiar to that particular case. [Garfield Twp, 348 Mich at 342 (citations omitted).] -8- Consistent with these standards, the Supreme Court has found a public nuisance in the face of an actual obstruction on a public highway. 1988The judge stated: Plaintiffs have adduced no testimony or evidence which would tend to establish that the Defendants’ activities resulted in harm to "an interest common to the general public, rather than peculiar to one individual, or several.” [Garfield Twp v Young; 348 Mich 337, 342 ; 82 NW2d 876 (1957).] Relying on the definition of private nuisance offered in Kilts, supra, Judge Roberts found that plaintiffs had established the existence of a private nuisance created by the defendants. | 1 | 2 |
Hadfield v. Oakland County Drain Commissionerred2 sentences1991See Hadfield, supra at 176 ; Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 *684 NW2d 390 (1964). 1991Hadfield, supra at 175-177 . | 1 | 2 |
Allison v. AEW CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLPgreen1 sentence2015See Allison, 481 Mich at 425 .6 Given our conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact that precludes 6 In light of our conclusion that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the requisite elements of a public nuisance claim, we need not address the additional genuine issues of material fact identified by plaintiff in his brief on appeal because these issues of fact are not sufficient to preclude summary disposition. -11- summary disposition of plaintiff’s premises liability and public nuisance claims, we need not address the other argumen | 1 | 1 |
Yarrick v. Village of Kent Citygreen1 sentence1991A public nuisance can generally be described as an act or omission "which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects.” Li (On Second Remand), supra at 488-489, quoting Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), §90, p 643; see also Yarrick, supra at 630 . | 1 | 1 |
Li v. Wonggreen1 sentence1991In his separate opinion, Justice Levin, Li, supra at 607, while stopping short of explicitly stating that a public nuisance exception is recognized, does suggest such a conclusion: Public nuisance is a long-recognized category of nuisance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pound v. Garden City School District
green
2 sentences1992The argument for historical recognition of a public nuisance exception rests largely upon Justice Boyle’s concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 206 -207 — which in turn relied upon Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503 ; 141 NW 890 (1913), and Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402 ; 212 NW 73 (1927)— and upon Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 NW2d 390 (1964). 1992The argument for historical recognition of a public nuisance exception rests largely upon Justice Boyle’s concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 206 -207 — which in turn relied upon Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503 ; 141 NW 890 (1913), and Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402 ; 212 NW 73 (1927)— and upon Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 NW2d 390 (1964). | 4 | 1990–1992 |
Cloverleaf Car Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
green
2 sentences2021A public nuisance claim is based on “an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public.” Cloverleaf Car Co v Phillips Petroleum Co, 213 Mich App 186, 190 ; 540 NW2d 297 (1995). 2021A public nuisance claim is based on “an unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public.” Cloverleaf Car Co v Phillips Petroleum Co, 213 Mich App 186, 190 ; 540 NW2d 297 (1995). | 3 | 2015–2021 |
Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co.
green
2 sentences2021A private nuisance is “a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” Adkins 440 Mich at 302 . 2016“A public nuisance involves the unreasonable interference with a right common to all members of the general public.” Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co, 440 Mich 293 , 304 n 8; 487 NW2d 715 (1992). | 3 | 2011–2021 |
Kilts v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences1992For example, if the government concluded that it would be profitable to establish a gambling casino, and to situate such an establishment in a residential neighborhood, the government might be subject to abatement and to an action in damages by one who suffered special damages. 7 As this Court explained in Kilts v Kent Co Bd of Supervisors, 162 Mich 646, 651 ; 127 NW 821 (1910), a nuisance involves a condition "so serious as to interfere with the comfort of life and enjoyment of property, or so threatening as to constitute an impending danger to persons in the enjoyment of their legitimate rig 1992For example, if the government concluded that it would be profitable to establish a gambling casino, and to situate such an establishment in a residential neighborhood, the government might be subject to abatement and to an action in damages by one who suffered special damages. 7 As this Court explained in Kilts v Kent Co Bd of Supervisors, 162 Mich 646, 651 ; 127 NW 821 (1910), a nuisance involves a condition "so serious as to interfere with the comfort of life and enjoyment of property, or so threatening as to constitute an impending danger to persons in the enjoyment of their legitimate rig | 2 | 1988–1992 |
Wagner v. Regency Inn Corp.
green
2 sentences2016As described by this Court, the “unreasonable interference” underlying a public nuisance claim includes: (1) conduct that significantly interferes with public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience; (2) conduct that is prescribed by law; (3) conduct of a continuing nature that produces a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the actor knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect on public rights. [Wagner v Regency Inn Corp, 186 Mich App 158, 163 ; 463 NW2d 450 (1990).] To be considered a public nuisance, the activity must be harmful to the public health, or create an inter 2016As described by this Court, the “unreasonable interference” underlying a public nuisance claim includes: (1) conduct that significantly interferes with public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience; (2) conduct that is prescribed by law; (3) conduct of a continuing nature that produces a permanent or long-lasting effect, and, as the actor knows or has reason to know, has a significant effect on public rights. [Wagner v Regency Inn Corp, 186 Mich App 158, 163 ; 463 NW2d 450 (1990).] To be considered a public nuisance, the activity must be harmful to the public health, or create an inter | 1 | 2016–2016 |
James S. Holden Co. v. Connor
neutral
2 sentences1994It wrests private rights from their moorings, lets down constitutional barriers, and alters the foundation of government. [ James S Holden Co v Connor, 257 Mich 580, 600 ; 241 NW 915 (1932).] [27] See Const 1963, art 12, § 1 (outlining the procedure by which the Legislature proposes, and the electorate may approve, a constitutional amendment); art 12, § 2 (outlining the procedure by which the people may both propose and approve a constitutional amendment); art 12, § 3 (outlining the procedure by which no later than every sixteen years the people may call a constitutional convention to revise t 1994It wrests private rights from their moorings, lets down constitutional barriers, and alters the foundation of government. [ James S Holden Co v Connor, 257 Mich 580, 600 ; 241 NW 915 (1932).] [27] See Const 1963, art 12, § 1 (outlining the procedure by which the Legislature proposes, and the electorate may approve, a constitutional amendment); art 12, § 2 (outlining the procedure by which the people may both propose and approve a constitutional amendment); art 12, § 3 (outlining the procedure by which no later than every sixteen years the people may call a constitutional convention to revise t | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Sitz v. Department of State Police
green
1 sentence1994It wrests private rights from their moorings, lets down constitutional barriers, and alters the foundation of government. [ James S Holden Co v Connor, 257 Mich 580, 600 ; 241 NW 915 (1932).] [27] See Const 1963, art 12, § 1 (outlining the procedure by which the Legislature proposes, and the electorate may approve, a constitutional amendment); art 12, § 2 (outlining the procedure by which the people may both propose and approve a constitutional amendment); art 12, § 3 (outlining the procedure by which no later than every sixteen years the people may call a constitutional convention to revise t | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Trowbridge v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences1992The argument for historical recognition of a public nuisance exception rests largely upon Justice Boyle’s concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 206 -207 — which in turn relied upon Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503 ; 141 NW 890 (1913), and Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402 ; 212 NW 73 (1927)— and upon Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 NW2d 390 (1964). 1992The argument for historical recognition of a public nuisance exception rests largely upon Justice Boyle’s concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 206 -207 — which in turn relied upon Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503 ; 141 NW 890 (1913), and Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402 ; 212 NW 73 (1927)— and upon Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 NW2d 390 (1964). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Burford v. City of Grand Rapids
green
2 sentences1992Justice Boyle now, in addition to Wyoming Twp and Trowbridge, relies upon Dermont v Mayor of Detroit, 4 Mich 435 (1857), and Burford v Grand Rapids, 53 Mich 98 ; 18 NW 571 (1884), to support the existence of a public nuisance exception. 1992Justice Boyle now, in addition to Wyoming Twp and Trowbridge, relies upon Dermont v Mayor of Detroit, 4 Mich 435 (1857), and Burford v Grand Rapids, 53 Mich 98 ; 18 NW 571 (1884), to support the existence of a public nuisance exception. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dermont v. Mayor
neutral
1 sentence1992Justice Boyle now, in addition to Wyoming Twp and Trowbridge, relies upon Dermont v Mayor of Detroit, 4 Mich 435 (1857), and Burford v Grand Rapids, 53 Mich 98 ; 18 NW 571 (1884), to support the existence of a public nuisance exception. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Li v. Feldt
green
2 sentences1992After Li v Feldt (After Remand), this Court in Li v Feldt (On Second Remand), 187 Mich App 475 ; 468 NW2d 268 (1991), rev’d on other grounds 439 Mich 457 ; 487 NW2d 127 (1992), determined that the plaintiff in that case had stated a public nuisance claim notwithstanding her focus on "intentional nuisance” in the trial court and on appeal. 1992After Li v Feldt (After Remand), this Court in Li v Feldt (On Second Remand), 187 Mich App 475 ; 468 NW2d 268 (1991), rev’d on other grounds 439 Mich 457 ; 487 NW2d 127 (1992), determined that the plaintiff in that case had stated a public nuisance claim notwithstanding her focus on "intentional nuisance” in the trial court and on appeal. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Li v. Feldt
green
2 sentences1992After Li v Feldt (After Remand), this Court in Li v Feldt (On Second Remand), 187 Mich App 475 ; 468 NW2d 268 (1991), rev’d on other grounds 439 Mich 457 ; 487 NW2d 127 (1992), determined that the plaintiff in that case had stated a public nuisance claim notwithstanding her focus on "intentional nuisance” in the trial court and on appeal. 1992After Li v Feldt (After Remand), this Court in Li v Feldt (On Second Remand), 187 Mich App 475 ; 468 NW2d 268 (1991), rev’d on other grounds 439 Mich 457 ; 487 NW2d 127 (1992), determined that the plaintiff in that case had stated a public nuisance claim notwithstanding her focus on "intentional nuisance” in the trial court and on appeal. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Attorney General ex rel. Township of Wyoming v. City of Grand Rapids
green
2 sentences1992The argument for historical recognition of a public nuisance exception rests largely upon Justice BOYLE'S concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 206 -207 — which in turn relied upon Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503 ; 141 NW 890 (1913), and Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402 ; 212 NW 73 (1927) — and upon Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 NW2d 390 (1964). 1992The argument for historical recognition of a public nuisance exception rests largely upon Justice Boyle’s concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 206 -207 — which in turn relied upon Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503 ; 141 NW 890 (1913), and Trowbridge v City of Lansing, 237 Mich 402 ; 212 NW 73 (1927)— and upon Pound v Garden City School Dist, 372 Mich 499 ; 127 NW2d 390 (1964). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bronson v. Oscoda Township
green
2 sentences1991Dinger, 147 Mich App 170 -172. 1 Recently, in Bronson v Oscoda Twp (On Second Remand), 188 Mich App 679 ; 470 NW2d 688 (1991), this Court addressed the applicability of a public nuisance exception in a case factually similar to this one. 1991Dinger, 147 Mich App 170 -172. 1 Recently, in Bronson v Oscoda Twp (On Second Remand), 188 Mich App 679 ; 470 NW2d 688 (1991), this Court addressed the applicability of a public nuisance exception in a case factually similar to this one. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.