Opinion ID: 846038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Court Of Appeals Test

Text: In reaching its holding, the Court of Appeals did not focus on the question of reasonable control. Instead, the Court of Appeals relied on a general rule that relocation costs may be imposed on the utility if necessitated by the municipality's discharge of a governmental function, while the expenses must be borne by the municipality if necessitated by its discharge of a proprietary function. [24] This general rule appears to emanate from City of Pontiac v. Consumers Power Co., [25] and is derived from McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 34.74(a), p. 184. While many Michigan Court of Appeals cases have applied the general rule, [26] there is no support for it in either our statutes or Constitution. The proper general rule, which has been inexplicably ignored by the Court of Appeals, was articulated by this Court in McGraw nearly 100 years ago. Today, we reaffirm the holding and standard articulated in McGraw as being consistent with the modern constitutional provisions of the analogues of these provisions it construed: A municipality may regulate highways, streets, alleys, and public places to the degree such regulations are consistent with state law. We overrule the Court of Appeals cases that apply the proprietary function/governmental function test in this area of the law. [27]