Township of Holly v. Holly Disposal, Inc., No. 93794
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Writing for the Court | LEVIN |
| Citation | 440 Mich. 891,487 N.W.2d 753 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 93794,No. 119028 |
| Parties | TOWNSHIP OF HOLLY, a Michigan municipal corporation, Township of Grand Blanc, a Michigan municipal corporation, City of Grand Blanc, a Michigan municipal corporation, City of Burton, a Michigan municipal corporation, and Mt. Holly Ski Area, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOLLY DISPOSAL, INC., a Michigan corporation, and William H. Leoni, Sr., Individually, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees, and Michigan Department of Natural Resources a/k/a Natural Resources Commission, Howard A. Tanner or his successor Ronald Skook, Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Defendants. COA |
Page 753
Township of Grand Blanc, a Michigan municipal corporation,
City of Grand Blanc, a Michigan municipal corporation, City
of Burton, a Michigan municipal corporation, and Mt. Holly
Ski Area, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
HOLLY DISPOSAL, INC., a Michigan corporation, and William H.
Leoni, Sr., Individually, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
Michigan Department of Natural Resources a/k/a Natural
Resources Commission, Howard A. Tanner or his
successor Ronald Skook, Director of the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Defendants.
COA No. 119028.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal and the motion to reinstate injunctive relief are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgments of the Court of Appeals, 189 Mich.App. 581, 473 N.W.2d 778, and we GRANT, in part, the motion to reinstate injunctive relief. The granting of injunctive relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court, although the decision must not be arbitrary and must be based on the facts of the particular case. Roy v. Chevrolet Motor Car Company, 262 Mich. 663, 668, 247 N.W. 774 (1933). On the record presented here, we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we REINSTATE the judgment of the Oakland Circuit Court, except insofar as the judgment precluded the Department of
Page 754
Natural Resources from considering a future application from the defendants to operate a landfill at the site in question. The defendants may file such a future application, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources may act upon it, provided that all statutory and administrative requirements are satisfied, including the requirement of proper notice.LEVIN, J., dissents and states as follows:
I would deny or grant leave to appeal. I adhere to the view that peremptory reversal should be reserved for cases in which the law is settled and no factual assessment is required. 1 In the instant case, as indicated in the peremptory order, factual and legal assessment is required. Peremptory disposition is not appropriate.
Further, this Court's peremptory disposition does not comport with the requirements of Const. 1963, art. 6, Sec. 6, which requires that "[d]ecisions of the supreme court, including all decisions on prerogative writs, shall be in writing and shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons for each decision...."
The order of peremptory reversal of the Court of Appeals does not contain any statement of facts or an adequate statement of reasons for decision; the statement that "we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion" is conclusory, delphic, and inscrutable. The constitution requires a statement of facts and reasons that is scrutable. The departure from the constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Gomez, Docket No. 328033.
...the decision must not be arbitrary and must be based on the facts of the particular case." Holly Twp. v. Dep't. of Natural Resources, 440 Mich. 891 [487 N.W.2d 753] (1992) ; see also Wayne Co. Dep't of Health v. Olsonite Corp., 79 Mich.App. 668, 699–700, 706–707, 263 N.W.2d 778 (1977).We ul......
-
Howard v. White, Docket Nos. 96435
...890-891, 487 N.W.2d 763 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Holly Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources (Holly Twp. v. Holly Disposal, Inc.), 440 Mich. 891, 891-893, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Marzonie v. A.C.I.A., 441 Mich. 522, 535-539, 495 N.W.2d 788 (1992) (Levin, J., disse......
-
Higgins Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Gerrish Twp.
...and must be based on the facts of the particular case.'" Id. at 217, 634 N.W.2d 692, quoting Holly Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 440 Mich. 891, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992). See Cipri v. Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc., 235 Mich.App. 1, 9, 596 N.W.2d 620 (1999); Schadewald v. Brull, 225 Mich.A......
-
PRESERVE DUNES, INC. v. DEQ, Docket No. 231728.
...Holly Twp. v. DNR, 189 Mich.App. 581, 473 N.W.2d 778 (1991), on reh 194 Mich.App. 213, 486 N.W.2d 307 (1992), vacated on other grounds 440 Mich. 891, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992); Addison Twp. v. Gout, 171 Mich. App. 122, 429 N.W.2d 612 (1988), rev'd in part on other grounds 435 Mich. 809, 460 N.W......
-
Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Gomez, Docket No. 328033.
...the decision must not be arbitrary and must be based on the facts of the particular case." Holly Twp. v. Dep't. of Natural Resources, 440 Mich. 891 [487 N.W.2d 753] (1992) ; see also Wayne Co. Dep't of Health v. Olsonite Corp., 79 Mich.App. 668, 699–700, 706–707, 263 N.W.2d 778 (1977).We ul......
-
Howard v. White, Docket Nos. 96435
...890-891, 487 N.W.2d 763 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Holly Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources (Holly Twp. v. Holly Disposal, Inc.), 440 Mich. 891, 891-893, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Marzonie v. A.C.I.A., 441 Mich. 522, 535-539, 495 N.W.2d 788 (1992) (Levin, J., disse......
-
Higgins Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Gerrish Twp.
...and must be based on the facts of the particular case.'" Id. at 217, 634 N.W.2d 692, quoting Holly Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 440 Mich. 891, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992). See Cipri v. Bellingham Frozen Foods, Inc., 235 Mich.App. 1, 9, 596 N.W.2d 620 (1999); Schadewald v. Brull, 225 Mich.A......
-
PRESERVE DUNES, INC. v. DEQ, Docket No. 231728.
...Holly Twp. v. DNR, 189 Mich.App. 581, 473 N.W.2d 778 (1991), on reh 194 Mich.App. 213, 486 N.W.2d 307 (1992), vacated on other grounds 440 Mich. 891, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992); Addison Twp. v. Gout, 171 Mich. App. 122, 429 N.W.2d 612 (1988), rev'd in part on other grounds 435 Mich. 809, 460 N.W......