WAYNE COUNTY v. HATHCOCK, 469 Mich. 959 (2003)

Nos. 124070-124078.Supreme Court of Michigan.
November 17, 2003.

Leave to Appeal Granted.

Nos. 124070-124078. The parties are directed to include among the issues to be briefed (1) whether plaintiff has the authority, pursuant to MCL 213.23 or otherwise, to take defendants’ properties; (2) whether the proposed takings, which are at least partly intended to result in later transfers to private entities, are for a “public purpose,” pursuant to Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, 410 Mich 616 (1981); and (3) whether the “public purpose” test set forth in Poletown, supra, is consistent with Const 1963, art 10, § 2 and, if not, whether this test should be overruled. Further, the parties should discuss whether a decision overruling Poletown should apply retroactively or prospectively only, taking into consideration the reasoning in Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675
(2002). Persons or groups interested in the determination of the questions presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Court of Appeals Nos. 239438, 239563, 240184, 240187, 240189, 240190, 240193-240195.

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring in result).

I agree that leave should be granted in this matter, but would not specify the road map to an inevitable destination. While there is no obstacle to this Court’s discarding precedent (see my dissenting statement to the resubmission order in Robinson v. Detroit, 461 Mich 1201-1204 [1999]), I would not direct the parties to show cause why yet another precedent should fall.

KELLY, J. I would grant leave to appeal without direction to the parties as to the issues to be addressed.

Page 960