Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Park Site

14 Citing cases

  1. Dept. of Trans. v. Gilling

    289 Mich. App. 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    [Id. (emphasis added).] See also In re Slum Clearance, 332 Mich 485, 497; 52 NW2d 195 (1952) quoting In re Park Site on Private Claim 16, Detroit, 247 Mich 1, 3; 225 NW 498 (1929) (stating that "the owner of property taken may recover for interruption of business"); Moesta, 91 Mich at 154 (stating that in condemnation cases the remedy afforded is similar to an action in tort "in which property rights have been interfered with without the owner's assent" and that "[i]n such cases damages for the interruption of the owner's business are allowed"). The Court then reversed the jury's verdict because it failed to adequately compensate for business damages; addressing the claims of one of the appellants, the Court stated

  2. Detroit v. Michael's Prescript

    143 Mich. App. 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 19 times
    Finding loss of going concern where entire segments of a residential and business community eliminated drug store's customer base

    We note, however, that where a business is transferable, the business owner may recover for certain business interruption expenses. See In re Park Site on Private Claim 16, 247 Mich. 1; 225 N.W. 498 (1929). It should be clear that recovery for business interruption damages and recovery for going concern value are mutually exclusive since one assumes the continuation of the business and the other assumes its loss.

  3. Palmer v. Connecticut Ry. Co.

    311 U.S. 544 (1941)   Cited 110 times
    Construing "actual damages" in the Bankruptcy Act as synonymous with nonspeculative, compensatory damages, and noting that "[t]he ways compensatory damages may be proven are many"

    See Meck Masten, Railroad Leases and Reorganization, 49 Yale Law Journal 626.Tax Cases: In many tax cases long-term leases have been valued, though frequently without any statement of the evidence or method used. Northern Hotel Co., 3 B.T.A. 1099, 1102; Newman Theatre Co., 4 B.T.A. 390; L.S. Donaldson Co., 12 B.T.A. 271; A.H. Woods Theatre Co., 12 B.T.A. 827; Consolidated Investment Co., 13 B.T.A. 1252; Hotel Wisconsin Realty Co., 16 B.T.A. 334; James Bldg. Co., 22 B.T.A. 658; Martha Realty Co., 22 B.T.A. 342, 344; New York ex rel. Delaware Hudson Canal Co. v. Feitner, 61 A.D. 129; 70 N.Y.S. 500; Appeal Tax Court v. Western Maryland R. Co., 50 Md. 274, 298; Philadelphia, W. B.R. Co. v. Appeal Tax Court, 50 Md. 397; New York ex rel. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 197 A.D. 852; 189 N.Y.S. 241. Eminent Domain Cases: Matter of the City of New York: Beers v. Schlessinger, 120 A.D. 700; 105 N.Y.S. 779; In re Park Site, 247 Mich. 1; 225 N.W. 498. Contract Cases: Bondy v. Harvey, 218 A.D. 126; 217 N.Y.S. 877; Williams v. Burrell, 1 C.B. 402.E.g. New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Company Reorganization, 239 I.C.C. 337, 351, 386, 387, 389, 453; In re Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Pacific R. Co., 36 F. Supp. 193, 205 et seq.; same, 239 I.C.C. 485, 537, 553; Erie Railroad Company Reorganization, 239 I.C.C. 653, 685, 689.

  4. TeleTech Inc. v. City of Flint

    No. 305937 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2013)

    All of these matters go to enhance the value of the lease." Id. (citing In re Park Site on Private Claim 16, City of Detroit, 247 Mich 1, 4; 225 NW 498 (1929)). Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to determine its damages within a reasonable degree of certainty.

  5. Merkur Steel Supply, Inc. v. City of Detroit

    261 Mich. App. 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 62 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Merkur Steel Supply, Inc. v. Detroit, 261 Mich. App. 116, 127-30, 680 N.W.2d 485 (2004), the court affirmed a finding of de facto inverse condemnation where the City approved condemnation of the area around the airport which included the plaintiff's property, the City failed to take any steps toward condemnation of the plaintiff's property in over ten years, the City condemned few of the properties and let the majority of the properties decline, and the City simultaneously prevented plaintiff from expanding its operations.

    They are not substantive damages in condemnation proceedings." In re Park Site on Private Claim 16, City of Detroit, 247 Mich. 1, 4; 225 N.W. 498 (1929). "Damages will not be allowed in condemnation cases unless they can be proven with reasonable certainty."

  6. Detroit v. Campbell

    380 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    "We note, however, that where a business is transferable, the business owner may recover for certain business interruption expenses. See In re Park Site onPrivate Claim 16, 247 Mich. 1; 225 N.W. 498 (1929). It should be clear that recovery for business interruption damages and recovery for going concern value are mutually exclusive since one assumes the continuation of the business and the other assumes its loss.

  7. City of Detroit v. Hamtramck Community Federal Credit Union

    146 Mich. App. 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    In Hamtramck Community Fed Credit Union, 146 Mich App at 157, the city of Detroit condemned the defendant credit union's land, and a jury awarded the credit union $122,000 in business-interruption damages.

    It has long been held that damages resulting from business interruption are compensable in condemnation cases provided the damages can be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. Grand Rapids I R Co v. Weiden, 70 Mich. 390, 395; 38 N.W. 294 (1888); In re Park Site, 247 Mich. 1, 3; 225 N.W. 498 (1929); In re Grand Haven Highway, supra. We disagree with plaintiff's contention that the proofs introduced to support defendant's claim for business interruption damages were too speculative and conjectural.

  8. In re Lansing Urban Renewal

    68 Mich. App. 158 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 14 times
    Finding loss of going concern when relocation attempts were prevented by government action

    Further, loss of future profits has been held not to be a separately compensable item of damages. In re Park Site on Private Claim 16, Detroit, 247 Mich. 1, 4; 225 N.W. 498 (1929). This case is remanded for recomputation of interest consistent with the dictates of this opinion.

  9. In re Grand Haven Highway

    357 Mich. 20 (Mich. 1959)   Cited 20 times

    Appellant contends that: "In the fairly recent cases of In re Park Site, City of Detroit, 247 Mich. 1, 3, 4; In re Jeffries Homes Housing Project, 306 Mich. 638; In re Slum Clearance. 332 Mich. 485, 496: and In re Condemnation for Battle Creek Park, 341 Mich. 412, 422, the Supreme Court repudiated the tort theory set forth in the Weiden Case and in the Moesta Case, and denied recovery of losses due to interruption of business." An examination of the 4 above cases cited by appellant discloses that this Court held that the property owner could not recover loss of profits because of damages caused by business interruption, but did not repudiate Moesta or Weiden in regards to expenses incurred by business interruption.

  10. Garrett v. City of Meridian, Miss

    111 So. 2d 922 (Miss. 1959)

    plaintiff, it being clear from the evidence and from the admission of the defendant, City of Meridian, that Hamilton Road between Twenty-second Avenue and Tom Bailey Drive, including where it touched the property of plaintiff could not be reached and was not accessible from any street or avenue in the city of Meridian." XVI. The right of the owner abutting the street or road to have direct access to that street or road and this Court has repeatedly held that such right shall not be destroyed or impaired by public authorities without the payment of due compensation to the abutting owner of the property right. Carney v. Miss. State Highway Comm., supra; B. M. RR. Co. v. Reinackle, 15 Neb. 279; City of Laurel v. Rowell, supra; Crawford v. The Village of Deleware, 7 Ohio St., 460; Curry v. Railroad Co., 87 W. Va. 548, 105 S.E. 780, 22 A.L.R. 138; Collins v. Miss. State Highway Comm., 232 Miss. 474, 102 So.2d 678; Hamilton v. Miss. State Highway Comm., supra; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; In re Park Site, 247 Mich. 1, 225 N.W. 498; Joe Duck Kwong v. Miss. Levee Comrs., 164 Miss. 250, 144 So. 693; Lahr v. Va. Met. RR. Co., 104 N.Y. 268; Minsk v. Fulton County, 83 Ga. App. 520, 64 S.E. 336; Miss. State Highway Comm. v. Hillman, 189 Miss. 850, 198 So. 565; Miss. State Highway Comm. v. Spencer, 232 Miss. 155, 101 So.2d 449; Miss. State Highway Comm. v. Williamson, 181 Miss. 399, 179 So. 736; Morris v. Covington County, 118 Miss. 875, 80 So. 337; Parker v. Miss. State Highway Comm., 173 Miss. 213, 162 So. 162; Pause v. City of Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92, 105, 26 S.E. 489; Smith v. Miss. State Highway Comm., 183 Miss. 741,184 So. 814; State Highway Comm. v. Corley, 186 Miss. 437, 191 So. 119; Theobold v. Louisville, N.O. T. RR. Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 So. 230; Town of Clinton v. Turner, supra; Sec. 3374-126, Code 1942. Ethridge, Minniece Bourdeaux, Meridian, for appellee.