Opinion ID: 2012216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: `The ordinance comes to us clothed with every presumption of validity.' 391 Mich 139, 162, quoting from Brae Burn, Inc.

Text: 2. `[I]t is the burden of the party attacking to prove affirmatively that the ordinance is an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon the owner's use of his property    It must appear that the clause attacked is an arbitrary fiat, a whimsical ipse dixit, and that there is no room for a legitimate difference of opinion concerning its reasonableness.' 391 Mich 139, 162, quoting Brae Burn, Inc. 3. Michigan has adopted the view that to sustain an attack on a zoning ordinance, an aggrieved property owner must show that if the ordinance is enforced the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. 391 Mich 139, 162-163. 4. `This Court, however, is inclined to give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge in equity cases.' 391 Mich 139, 163 quoting Christine Building Co v City of Troy, 367 Mich 508, 518; 116 NW2d 816 (1962).