Court Opinion

ID: 9735801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:31:19.080623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:01.639585
License: Public Domain

Beasley, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
There has been a serious question whether defendants-appellants Lucases did, in fact, file their appeal within the time limit. Whether defendants in fact filed their appeal by closing time on the last day to appeal or, if not, whether, under the peculiar facts of this case, defendants were entitled to a delayed appeal, are questions that should be resolved in defendants’ favor.
I am not inclined to join plaintiff-appellee, City of Detroit, in this unseemly effort to deprive defendants of their right to an appeal on the merits. This issue, where plaintiff city has acquired private property by condemnation for the purpose of turning it over to a private entity for private purposes, is entitled to a full appellate airing.
I would find that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and would decide it on the merits. However, I do not see any purpose in this dissent in further extended discussion of Poletown Neighborhood Council v Detroit, 410 Mich 616; 304 NW2d 455 (1981). Hopefully, the Supreme Court will, in due course, accept the challenge to reexamine the basis for the Poletown decision.