Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

County of Wayne v. Hathcock

Michigan Supreme Court
 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004)


Facts

In order to renovate its airport, Wayne County (plaintiff) received and used federal grant money to purchase properties in the airport’s vicinity through voluntary sales. A condition of the federal grant money was that properties acquired with the funds had to be put to commercial use. Hence the county came up with a development plan to build a corporate mall, hotel, conference center, and recreational facilities on those lands. The plan was expected to create 30,000 jobs and generate $350 million in tax revenue from a broader tax base of industrial, service, and technology sectors. After purchasing about 1000 acres, the county began condemnation proceedings to purchase 19 additional lots so that it would have contiguous property for development. Hathcock and the other holdover owners (defendants), contested the proposed condemnations as not being for a “public purpose” as mandated by the state constitution. The trial court found that the proposed development constituted a public purpose. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted Hathcock’s appeal from the appellate court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Young, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Weaver, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.