In re Opening of Elmhurst Avenue

2 Citing cases

  1. G.M. Engineers & Associates, Inc. v. West Bloomfield Township

    922 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1990)   Cited 129 times
    Finding that if defendants had the discretion to deny plaintiff's zoning application regardless of whether Plaintiff complied with certain minimum, mandatory requirements, then plaintiff has no "legitimate claim of entitlement" or "justifiable expectation" in the approval of its applications

    Under Michigan law, contracts are recognized as property, Wilkinson v. Powe, 300 Mich. 275, 285, 1 N.W.2d 539 (1942) (right to perform a contract and reap the profits is a property right), subject to just compensation upon being taken by the government. City of Detroit v. Detroit Lumber Co. (In re Opening of ElmhurstAve.), 231 Mich. 563, 565-66, 204 N.W. 729, 730 (1925); State Highway Comm'r v. Flanders, 5 Mich. App. 572, 577, 147 N.W.2d 441 (1967). This is true even when the contract rights are subject to being defeated, as were the plaintiff's in this case.

  2. In re Widening Davison Avenue

    227 N.W. 705 (Mich. 1929)

    Counsel for the railroad company insist that this court is committed to a different rule. In the following cases, to which they call attention, Matter of Opening of First Street, 66 Mich. 42; Commissioners v. Railroad Co., 90 Mich. 385; Commissioners v. Railroad. Co., 91 Mich. 91; Plymouth v. Railroad Co., 139 Mich. 347, and In re Opening of Elmhurst Avenue, 231 Mich. 563, it was held that the compensation should include the necessary outlay in making the crossing safe and providing guards against accidents. As no question is here raised as to the sufficiency of the award for these purposes, we do not consider it. Stress is particularly laid upon the language of Mr. Justice GRANT in Commissioners v. Railroad Co., 91 Mich. 291. He there said, "There is not one rule for railroad companies and another for private landowners," and it was held that where a warehouse on the railroad company's land is "rendered less available and less valuable for the purposes for which it was constructed and used," it "was a proper element of damage, and should have been submitted to the jury."