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.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bush v. Shabahanggreen2 sentences2011Importantly, the early statute as interpreted in Wright used the present tense “reside,” while the current statute uses the present perfect tense, “has resided.” Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156, 167 ; 772 NW2d 272 (2009) (“[C]ourts must pay particular attention to statutory amendments, because a change in statutory language is presumed to reflect either a legislative change in the meaning of the statute itself or a desire to clarify the correct interpretation of the original statute.”). 2011Importantly, the early statute as interpreted in Wright used the present tense “reside,” while the current statute uses the present perfect tense, “has resided.” Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156, 167 ; 772 NW2d 272 (2009) (“[C]ourts must pay particular attention to statutory amendments, because a change in statutory language is presumed to reflect either a legislative change in the meaning of the statute itself or a desire to clarify the correct interpretation of the original statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
Duckworth v. Arkansasgreen2 sentences1963It is our opinion that the legislature in adopting the 1960 amendment was motivated by a desire to assist the youth of this State rather than by a concern “to facilitate the enforcement of sanitary and other State laws and regulations, with respect to its (the association’s) operation,” and we hold that the commission did not err in finding that appellant’s property was not exempt from taxation by the third sentence of paragraph “Fourth” exempting real estate of “young men’s Christian associations or young women’s Christian associations.” Is the clause “if at least 50% of the membership of the 1963It is our opinion that the legislature in adopting the 1960 amendment was motivated by a desire to assist the youth of this State rather than by a concern “to facilitate the enforcement of sanitary and other State laws and regulations, with respect to its (the association’s) operation,” and we hold that the commission did not err in finding that appellant’s property was not exempt from taxation by the third sentence of paragraph “Fourth” exempting real estate of “young men’s Christian associations or young women’s Christian associations.” Is the clause “if at least 50% of the membership of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Civil Service Commission
green
2 sentences1972Subsection (a) is merely one of the powers and duties of the commissioner enumerated under § 5, all of which must be "exercised and performed as herein provided and in accordance with the laws of the state and the ordinances of the city", a provision the effect of which in controlling its subsections we have already discussed. [27] The usual reasons given have been most succinctly stated in Williams v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Detroit (1970), 383 Mich 507 : "* * * Is a residence requirement a mere remnant of feudalism or sound administration to secure from a city employee better 1971If the question of the beneficial effect of a residence requirement for public employees on public employment, services is reasonably debatable, substantive due process is not violated, Williams, supra. On this record, that question is reasonably debatable and we find no violation of substantive due process. | 2 | 1971–1972 |
Estate of Marguerite Schubert v. Department of Treasury
green
1 sentence2023To be entitled to a PRE, the owner of the residence must claim a PRE for that residence as provided in MCL 211.7cc, see MCL 211.7cc(1), which includes, among other things, filing an affidavit for the relevant tax year as provided in MCL 211.7cc(2), see Estate of Schubert, 322 Mich App at 448 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n. v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences1975Noting that the recent case of Detroit Police Officers Association v Detroit, 391 Mich 44 ; 214 NW2d 803 (1974), controlled the issue before it, the Commission correctly held that the residence requirement was invalid except insofar as it was a recruiting requirement, since by issuing a resolution declaring residency to be a condition of employment for promotion of all employees the Board rejected its bargaining obligation and violated the PERA. 1975Noting that the recent case of Detroit Police Officers Association v Detroit, 391 Mich 44 ; 214 NW2d 803 (1974), controlled the issue before it, the Commission correctly held that the residence requirement was invalid except insofar as it was a recruiting requirement, since by issuing a resolution declaring residency to be a condition of employment for promotion of all employees the Board rejected its bargaining obligation and violated the PERA. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.