Spiek v. Department of Transportation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) was appropriate when “[t]aking all plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, the complaint fails to allege an essential element of their cause of action”
• holding that summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8
• “Taking all plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, the complaint fails to allege an essential element of their cause of action: that the damage to their property is of a unique or peculiar character different from the effects experienced by all other similarly situated property owners.”
• even if summary disposition is granted under the wrong rule, this Court may review the order under the correct rule
• “Where summary disposition is granted under the wrong rule, Michigan appellate courts, according to longstanding practice, will review the order under the correct rule.”
• “Thus, only the plaintiff uniquely affected by the physical invasion of frequent low-flying aircraft will recover for a taking, while those suffering merely the normal inconveniences of modern air travel over their lands at higher altitudes will not recover.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).