Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • E
  • English v. Augusta TownshipEnglish v. Augusta Township
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

English v. Augusta Township

Michigan Court of Appeals
514 N.W.2d 172 (1994)


English (plaintiff) owns a 49-acre parcel of land in Augusta Township (Township) (defendant). English’s property is zoned as agricultural/residential (AR). The Township zoned a 96-acre area as manufactured housing park (MHP). The Township supervisor owns 80 of the 96 acres currently zoned as MHP and never intends to develop it. The 96-acre MHP-zoned area is located away from water and sewer systems. A toxic-waste landfill is located adjacent to the 96-acre MHP-zoned area, and a federal prison is located three-quarters of a mile away from it. In 1989, English filed a petition with the Township to rezone English’s property to MHP. The Township denied English’s petition. English appealed to the trial court, seeking to compel the Township to rezone English’s property to MHP. At trial, a former Township official testified that the particular area already zoned as MHP was chosen because the Township board (Board) believed it would never be developed. Moreover, the former official testified that he was pressured by the Board to keep manufactured housing out of the Township, despite the fact that numerous developers had inquired about building manufactured homes there. English provided testimony that a nearby water line could accommodate a mobile home park at his location. The nearby sewer system could be easily adapted to handle the additional volume from a mobile home park as well. Local roads were sufficient to handle the proposed development. The trial court found that the Township had unconstitutionally excluded mobile-home parks. The trial court also found that English had demonstrated a demand for the proposed use, and that English’s parcel was suitable for it. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the Township to rezone English’s property from AR to MHP. The Township appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Shepherd, J.)

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 450,000 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 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial