THE HOME RULE CITY ACT
Act 279 of 1909
117.4h Public ways; permissible charter provisions.
Sec. 4-h.
Each city may in its charter provide:
(1) For the use, regulation, improvement and control of the surface of its streets, alleys and public ways, and of the space above and beneath them;
(2) For the use, by others than the owner, of property located in streets, alleys and public places, in the operation of a public utility, upon the payment of a reasonable compensation to the owners thereof;
(3) For a plan of streets and alleys within and for a distance of not more than 3 miles beyond its limits;
(4) For the use, control and regulation of streams, waters and water courses within its boundaries, but not so as to conflict with the law or action thereunder where a navigable stream is bridged or dammed; or with riparian or littoral rights without their corporate limits;
(5) For securing by condemnation, by agreement or purchase, or by any other means, an easement in property abutting or adjacent to any navigable stream, for the purpose of securing the privilege and right to construct, own and maintain along or adjacent to any navigable stream an elevated structure of 1 or more levels for use as vehicular or pedestrian passageway, or for any other municipal purpose;
(6) For the acquiring, establishment, operation, extension and maintenance of facilities for the storage and parking of vehicles within its corporate limits, including the fixing and collection of charges for services and use thereof on a public utility basis, and for such purpose to acquire by gift, purchase, condemnation or otherwise the land necessary therefor;
(7) For the acquiring, constructing, establishment, operation, extension and maintenance of facilities for the docking of pleasure water crafts and/or hydroplanes within its corporate limits, including the fixing and collection of charges for use thereof, and for such purpose or purposes to acquire by gift, purchase, condemnation or otherwise, the land necessary therefor.
History: Add. 1929, Act 126, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 2238 ;-- Am. 1931, Act 295, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 117.4h
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case:
Taylor v. Saxton, 349 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
Taylor v. Saxton, 349 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad">7 NW 728 (1881); Grooms v Union Guardian Trust Co, 309 Mich 437 ; 15 NW2d 698 (1944); Levendoski v Geisenhaver, 375 Mich 225 ; 134 NW2d 228 (1965); MCL 117.4h; MSA 5.2081. Affirmed.”
Bauer v. City of Garden City, 414 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “[ 4 ] Defendant cites, as its statutory mandate for maintaining a parking lot, the following passage from MCL 117.4h; MSA 5. 2081: Each city may in its charter provide: [[Image here]] (6) For the acquiring, establishment, operation, extension and maintenance of facilities for…”
Detroit Edison Co. v. City of Detroit, 527 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“Tomazewski v Palmer Bee Co, 223 Mich 565 ; 194 NW 571 (1923); see MCL 117.4h(l); MSA 5.2081(1). We conclude that the defendant city did not abuse its discretion in deciding to vacate its streets and alleys in furtherance of the Jefferson-Conner revitalization project.”
City of Troy v. Barnard, 455 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“, specifically MCL 117.4h; MSA 5.2081, which provides a city with the authority to use, regulate, improve and control the surface of its streets and public ways.”
Thomson v. City of Dearborn, 83 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 1957).
“” CL 1948, § 117.4h (Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.-2081). The revenue bond act of 1933, PA 1933, No 94, as amended (CL 1948 and CLS 1954, § 141.”
Grand Trunk W. R.R. v. City of Fenton, 457 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“In asserting that its ordinance is permitted by the second exception, the city argues that the state has delegated to the cities its power to control train speeds within city limits, citing the home rule cities act, MCL 117.4h(l); MSA 5.2081(1), and Const 1963, art 7, § 29.”
William Michael Hovey v. Twp. of Peninsula (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“, Const 1963, art 7, § 24 (stating that any city or village may operate public utilities); MCL 117.4h; MCL 125.3201 (stating permissible purposes for the establishment of districts under a zoning ordinance); Bevan v Brandon Twp, 438 Mich 385, 399-400 ; 475 NW2d 37 (1991)…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.4h(4) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.4h(l) — 2 cases
Detroit Edison Co. v. City of Detroit, 527 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“Tomazewski v Palmer Bee Co, 223 Mich 565 ; 194 NW 571 (1923); see MCL 117.4h(l); MSA 5.2081(1). We conclude that the defendant city did not abuse its discretion in deciding to vacate its streets and alleys in furtherance of the Jefferson-Conner revitalization project.”
Grand Trunk W. R.R. v. City of Fenton, 457 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“In asserting that its ordinance is permitted by the second exception, the city argues that the state has delegated to the cities its power to control train speeds within city limits, citing the home rule cities act, MCL 117.4h(l); MSA 5.2081(1), and Const 1963, art 7, § 29.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.