Opinion

Dowerk v. Oxford Charter Township

  • 233 Mich. App. 62
  • 592 N.W.2d 724
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed
Mar 12, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Hoekstra
On the bench
Hoekstra, Cavanagh, O'Connell
Cited by
32 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.9%

“An amendment is futile where the paragraphs or counts the plaintiff seeks to add merely restate, or slightly elaborate on, allegations already pleaded.”

How later courts described this case

  • “An amendment is futile where the paragraphs or counts the plaintiff seeks to add merely restate, or slightly elaborate on, allegations already pleaded.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Hoekstra, P.J.,

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I dissent from only that portion of the majority’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s proposal for a special-assessment district for improvement of the private roadway. In my opinion, the record developed by the township board is inadequate to allow us to determine whether its decision was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. Accordingly, I would favor remanding this issue to the township board for development of the record, including an explanation of the facts and reasoning by which the board reached its decision. See, e.g., Reenders v Parker, 217 Mich App 373 ; 551 NW2d 474 (1996). I concur in the remainder of the majority’s opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.