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.
8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2009 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nemeth v. Abonmarche Development, Incgreen2 sentences2009Finally, we disagree with defendants’ assertion that the trial court failed to articulate a pollution control standard. “[T]he MEPA specifically authorizes a court to determine the validity, reasonableness, and applica *143 bility of any standard for pollution or pollution control and to specify a new or different pollution control standard if the agency’s standard falls short of the substantive requirements of MEPA.” Nemeth, supra at 30 (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). 2006“Where the purpose of the statute used as a pollution control standard is to protect our natural resources or to prevent pollution and environmental degradation, a violation of such a statute can establish a prima facie case under the MEPA.” Nemeth, supra at 36 . | 4 | 7 |
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Department of Environmental Qualitygreen2 sentences2006Therefore, in determining that a plaintiff has made out a prima facie MEPA violation, the trial court may either (1) make detailed and specific findings that the defendant’s conduct has polluted, impaired, or destroyed, or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy, the air, wáter, or other natural resources, Ray, supra at 309-310 , or (2) find that the defendant has violated an applicable pollution control standard, Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 471 Mich 508, 516 ; 684 NW2d 847 (2004). 2006Therefore, in determining that a plaintiff has made out a prima facie MEPA violation, the trial court may either (1) make detailed and specific findings that the defendant’s conduct has polluted, impaired, or destroyed, or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy, the air, wáter, or other natural resources, Ray, supra at 309-310 , or (2) find that the defendant has violated an applicable pollution control standard, Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 471 Mich 508, 516 ; 684 NW2d 847 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
City of Portage v. Kalamazoo County Road Commissiongreen2 sentences2006See City of Portage v Kalamazoo Co Rd Comm, 136 Mich App 276, 282 ; 355 NW2d 913 (1984) (noting that MEPA does not permit a prima facie case to be made by balancing the disadvantages against the advantages of the defendant’s proposed action). 2006See City of Portage v Kalamazoo Co Rd Comm, 136 Mich App 276, 282 ; 355 NW2d 913 (1984) (noting that MEPA does not permit a prima facie case to be made by balancing the disadvantages against the advantages of the defendant’s proposed action). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ray v. Mason County Drain Commissioner
green
2 sentences2009To establish a prima facie violation of MEPA, a plaintiff must show that “the defendant has or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources.” Nestlé, supra at 88, citing MCL *138 324.1703(1) and Ray v Mason Co Drain Comm’r, 393 Mich 294, 309 ; 224 NW2d 883 (1975). “[I]n determining that a plaintiff has made out a prima facie MEPA violation, the trial court may either (1) make detailed and specific findings that the defendant’s conduct has polluted, impaired, or destroyed, or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy, the air, water, or other natural resour 2009To establish a prima facie violation of MEPA, a plaintiff must show that “the defendant has or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources.” Nestlé, supra at 88, citing MCL *138 324.1703(1) and Ray v Mason Co Drain Comm’r, 393 Mich 294, 309 ; 224 NW2d 883 (1975). “[I]n determining that a plaintiff has made out a prima facie MEPA violation, the trial court may either (1) make detailed and specific findings that the defendant’s conduct has polluted, impaired, or destroyed, or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy, the air, water, or other natural resour | 2 | 2006–2009 |
West Michigan Environmental Action Council v. Natural Resources Commission
green
2 sentences2002Assuming that the Portage factors were proper for assessing whether the activity in that case violated the mepa, it does not follow that the Portage factors, like the factors used in [West Michigan Environmental Action Council v Natural Resources Comm, 405 Mich 741 ; 275 NW2d 538 (1979)], are the proper pollution control standard here. 2002Assuming that the Portage factors were proper for assessing whether the activity in that case violated the mepa, it does not follow that the Portage factors, like the factors used in [West Michigan Environmental Action Council v Natural Resources Comm, 405 Mich 741 ; 275 NW2d 538 (1979)], are the proper pollution control standard here. | 2 | 1998–2002 |
Kimberly Hills Neighborhood Ass'n v. Dion
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 755, 275 N.W.2d 538 . [7] This argument is based on a line of Court of Appeals opinions beginning with Kimberly Hills Neighborhood Ass'n v. Dion, 114 Mich.App. 495 , 320 N.W.2d 668 (1982). 1998Id. at 755, 275 N.W.2d 538 . [7] This argument is based on a line of Court of Appeals opinions beginning with Kimberly Hills Neighborhood Ass'n v. Dion, 114 Mich.App. 495 , 320 N.W.2d 668 (1982). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.