rejecting an argument that the plaintiff waived any claim for attorney fees by failing to state such a request in its complaint or incorporating it into the final order; the issue was “briefed by the parties, a hearing on the issue took place, and the trial court’s written opinion awarding the fees show[ed] that it thoroughly considered the matter.”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting an argument that the plaintiff waived any claim for attorney fees by failing to state such a request in its complaint or incorporating it into the final order; the issue was “briefed by the parties, a hearing on the issue took place, and the trial court’s written opinion awarding the fees show[ed] that it thoroughly considered the matter.”
- affirming the trial court’s exercise of discretion under MCR 2.601(A) to award attorney fees that were authorized but not requested where both parties had briefed the issue and presented oral arguments
- city’s refusal to rezone property to allow construction of religious facility was not substantial burden on religious institute when other land in jurisdiction was zoned for that use
- "Whenever possible, courts should construe statutes in a manner that renders them constitutional."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring). I agree with part IV(B) of the majority opinion. I write separately because I believe it is unnecessary to determine whether defendants made an individualized assessment in this case or whether the statutory test of strict scrutiny was met, because plaintiff failed to show that its petition for rezoning was related to plaintiffs exercise of religion. Thus, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment on that basis and remand to the trial court for dismissal of plaintiffs claim.
WEAVER, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.