Thompson v. Enz

379 Mich. 667, 154 N.W.2d 473 (1967)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Thompson v. Enz

Michigan Supreme Court
379 Mich. 667, 154 N.W.2d 473 (1967)

Facts

A land-development corporation (defendant) purchased a riparian parcel of land on Gun Lake, a lake primarily used for recreation. The corporation subdivided the large parcel into lots, only 16 of which directly bordered the lake. The corporation proposed to give access to the lake to the remaining back lots by virtue of a canal the corporation would construct. Other riparian landowners (plaintiffs) on the lake sued to enjoin the proposed subdivision and the digging of the canal, claiming that the digging of the canal and the granting of riparian rights to the owners of the back lots would interfere with their riparian rights. There was no evidence that the level of the lake would be lowered or that its use for recreational purposes would be impaired. Both the corporation and the riparian landowners moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the riparian landowners, and upon appeal, the court of appeals reversed. The riparian landowners appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kavanagh, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership