Detroit Edison Co. v. Detroit

12 Citing cases

  1. City of Taylor v. Detroit Edison

    475 Mich. 109 (Mich. 2006)   Cited 49 times
    In City of Taylor v Detroit Edison Co, 475 Mich 109; 715 NW2d 28 (2006), our Supreme Court considered whether the plaintiff's ordinance requiring the defendant to bear the cost of relocating the defendant's transmission lines underground conflicted with the PSC's authority over cost allocation in this area.

    Therefore, Detroit Edison does not support plaintiff's argument or the holding of the Court of Appeals. See City of Monroe v. Postal Tel. Co., 195 Mich. 467, 162 N.W. 76 (1917), Detroit Edison Co. v. Detroit, 332 Mich. 348, 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952), and Detroit v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 374 Mich. 543, 132 N.W.2d 660 (1965). 332 Mich. 348, 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952).

  2. Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of L. A.

    50 Cal.2d 713 (Cal. 1958)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that the utility has the obligation to pay relocation expenses absent an express direction from the legislature or a provision in the franchise abrogating this obligation

    [3] The laying of sewers is a governmental as distinct from a proprietary function under the foregoing rule. ( Detroit Edison Co. v. City of Detroit, 332 Mich. 348 [ 51 N.W.2d 245, 247-248]; Louisville Gas ElectricCo. v. Commissioners of Sewerage of Louisville, 236 Ky. 376 [ 33 S.W.2d 344, 344-345]; Nicholas Di Menna Sons v. City ofNew York, 114 N.Y.S.2d 347, 350; Portland Gas Coke Co. v. Giebisch, 84 Or. 632 [165 P. 1004, L.R.A. 1917E 1092]; Cityof San Antonio v. San Antonio St. Ry. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 1[ 15 Tex. Civ. App. 1] [ 39 S.W. 136, 138]; Anderson v. Fuller, 51 Fla. 380 [41 So. 684, 688, 120 Am.St.Rep. 170, 6 L.R.A.N.S. 1026]; NationalWater-Works Co. v. City of Kansas, 28 F. 921, 922-923; cf.City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Gas Elec. Corp., 251 U.S. 32, 39-40 [40 S.Ct. 76, 64 L.Ed. 121]; State ex rel. Speeth v. Carney, 163 Ohio St. 159 [ 126 N.E.2d 449, 460]; PostalTel.-Cable Co. v. City County of San Francisco, 53 Cal.App. 188, 192-193 [ 199 P. 1108].) Panhandle etc. Co. v. StateHighway Com., 294 U.S. 613 [55 S.Ct. 563, 79 L.Ed. 1090], is not to the contrary, for in that case the utility's private right of way was involved, n

  3. City of Taylor v. Detroit Edison

    263 Mich. App. 551 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Local units of government retain the right to the reasonable control of their rights-of-way. Const 1963, art 7, § 29;Detroit Edison Co v. Detroit, 332 Mich 348, 354; 51 NW2d 245 (1952); TCG Detroit v. Dearborn, 261 Mich App 69, 79; 680 NW2d 24 (2004). Where the state occupies the field, the right to reasonable control is subject to the paramount authority of the state, except concerning matters that are "strictly referable" to the reasonable control of the streets.

  4. Martin v. Beldean

    248 Mich. App. 59 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Our courts have likewise held that "there cannot be a dedication for private purposes or enjoyment . . . ." West Michigan Park Ass'n v Dep't of Conservation, 2 Mich. App. 254, 267; 139 N.W.2d 758 (1966); see also Detroit Edison Co v Detroit, 332 Mich. 348, 353; 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952), and Patrick, supra at 191-192. Similarly, citing decisions from numerous other jurisdictions, 23 Am Jur 2d, Dedication, § 5, pp 7-8 (1983), states:

  5. O'Dess v. Grand Trunk W R Co.

    218 Mich. App. 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 17 times
    In O'Dess v Grand Trunk W R Co, 218 Mich. App. 694; 555 N.W.2d 261 (1996), the parties stipulated that a special master be appointed for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiffs' predecessors' deeds conveyed to the defendant's predecessor a fee interest and the nature of that interest.

    Quinn, supra, p 149. See also Detroit Edison Co v Detroit, 332 Mich. 348, 353; 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952). The Court continued:

  6. Detroit Edison Co v. Semta

    161 Mich. App. 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times
    In Detroit Edison Co v. Southeastern Michigan Transportation Auth, 161 Mich App 28; 410 NW2d 295 (1987), this Court ruled that the installation of the People Mover constituted a governmental function, and, consequently, the utility bore the cost of relocating its facilities and lines.

    Also see, People ex rel City of Chicago v Chicago City R Co, 324 Ill. 618; 155 N.E. 781 (1927); Peoples Gas Light Coke Co v City of Chicago, 413 Ill. 457; 109 N.E.2d 777 (1952). In Michigan this line of reasoning has been applied to the situation where a city desired to change the existing grade of a road and pursuant to this goal requested a trolly [sic] car company to remove parts of its railway ties, Detroit v The Fort Wayne E R Co, 90 Mich. 646 [51 N.W. 688] (1892), or where the construction of city sewers necessitated the removal of utility poles, Detroit Edison Co v Detroit, 332 Mich. 348 [ 51 N.W.2d 245] (1952), or where the construction of a sewage treatment facility required the relocation of a utility's equipment, Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Detroit, 106 Mich. App. 690 [ 308 N.W.2d 608] (1981), lv den 414 Mich. 869 (1982). See also, Consumers Power Co v Costle, 468 F. Supp. 375 (ED Mich, 1979).

  7. Pontiac v. Consumers Power Co.

    101 Mich. App. 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 6 times
    In Pontiac, the City of Pontiac requested that Consumers Power Company remove and relocate two electric power lines to facilitate the construction and renovation of Pontiac General Hospital.

    Whether the utility has located its transmission facilities by virtue of an easement, franchise, plat, or other grant is irrelevant; all are treated identically. Detroit Edison Co v Detroit, 332 Mich. 348; 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952), involved the relocation of an electric transmission line necessitated by the construction of a city sewer system, a function then, as now, held to be governmental in nature. The Court in that case held that the relocation costs must be borne by the utility company.

  8. Consumers Power Co. v. Costle

    468 F. Supp. 375 (E.D. Mich. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    Although a utility does have a property interest in the exercise of its franchise, it has been held that the cost of moving or replacing equipment, even if caused by governmental action, must be borne by the utility. The easements granted to utilities are in trust for the public and not a grant of right to private individuals, New Orleans Gaslight Co., supra, 197 U.S. at 460, 25 S.Ct. 471; Detroit Edison Co. v. Detroit, 332 Mich. 348, 352-53, 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952). The construction and maintenance of all such . . . conduits . . . and like structures shall be subject to the paramount right of the public to use such public places . . . and shall not interfere with other public uses thereof.

  9. Little v. Hirschman

    469 Mich. 553 (Mich. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Recognizing the validity of private dedications

    MCL 560.253(1) provides: Detroit Edison Co. v. Detroit, 332 Mich. 348, 353, 51 N.W.2d 245 (1952), and West Michigan Park Ass'n v. Dep't of Conservation, 2 Mich.App. 254, 267, 139 N.W.2d 758 (1966).          With the overview of private dedications completed, we turn to the specific dedication at issue in this case.

  10. City of Wichita v. Kansas Gas Electric Co.

    204 Kan. 546 (Kan. 1970)   Cited 6 times
    Interpreting Kan.Stat.Ann. § 12-2001

    ) We hold the canal route right-of-way in the instant case to be a "public place" or "public grounds" within the meaning of the Kansas Statutes and the Franchise Ordinance. Cases from other jurisdictions, dealing with the definitions of "public property," "public grounds" or "public places" in harmony with our holding here are: The Steam Dredge No. 6, 222 F. 576; Bauer v. County of Ventura, 45 C.2d 276, 289 P.2d 1; Taschner v. Iowa Elec. L. P. Co., 249 Iowa 673, 86 N.W.2d 915; and Detroit Edison Co. v. Detroit, 332 Mich. 348, 51 N.W.2d 245. The appellant claims it had rights prior to the proposed highway use of the canal right-of-way and that such rights were not revocable.