McDaniel Trucking v. Oak Const. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Sigal v. City of Detroit

    140 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 9 times
    In Sigal, the plaintiff purchased an interest in an apartment building after inspecting past water bills that indicated the building's account was current and revealed quarterly water bills of between $500 and $700.

    The city must charge consumers within each rate classification according to an equal rate. Plaintiffs' view, if accepted, might lead to increased fraud and corruption, and "would result in discrimination that for the protection of the public generally is forbidden by law". Robert McDaniel Trucking Co, Inc v Oak Construction Co, 359 Mich. 494, 501; 102 N.W.2d 575 (1960). To put it plainly, no one may avoid payment of a water bill merely because the city did not read the meter.

  2. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron v. Chicago N.W. Transp.

    581 F. Supp. 1144 (W.D. Mich. 1984)   Cited 15 times

    In a similar situation, where a trucking company raised the possible illegality of a rate agreement it had signed with a shipper, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that shippers and carriers entering into rate agreements "shall be deemed to have made the kind and character of contract permitted by the statute regulating such transaction." Robert McDaniel Trucking Co. v. Oak Construction Co., 359 Mich. 494, 511, 102 N.W.2d 575 (1960). The language of 49 U.S.C. ยง 10713 emphasizes the current enforceability of rate contracts made prior to the Staggers Act.