Appeal from Kent, George V. Bouchee, J.
Leave to appeal denied, 396 Mich 850.
T. M. Burns, P. J., and McGregor and D. F. Walsh, JJ.
1. Courts -- Supreme Court -- Majority Decisions -- Majority Result -- Precedent.
A majority of the Supreme Court must agree on a ground for decision in order to make that decision binding precedent for future cases; where there is merely a majority for a particular result, then the parties to the case are bound by the judgment but the case is not authority beyond the immediate parties.
2. Courts -- Supreme Court -- Dictates of Supreme Court -- Court of Appeals -- Good Faith.
The Court of Appeals is bound by the dictates of the Supreme Court and must follow those dictates in the utmost good faith.
3. Zoning -- Proposed Uses -- Administrative Hearings -- Judicial Review -- Restrictions -- Constitutional Law.
Judicial review of a municipal administrative hearing on zoning which determines the question of whether a property owner's proposed use of property is reasonable under all the circumstances shall be restricted to a determination of whether the record evidence supports the administrative findings (Const, 1963, art 6, § 28).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcgregor
Complaint by Clarence M. Werkhoven and Lois Werkhoven against the City of Grandville for an injunction prohibiting enforcement of a zoning ordinance. Injunction granted. The Court of Appeals reversed, 61 Mich App 200. Plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in lieu of grant of leave to appeal, 395 Mich 753.
Previously, *fn1 we ruled that plaintiffs had failed to sustain their burden in rebutting the presumption of constitutionality to which the defendant's zoning ordinances were entitled. In doing so, we relied heavily upon the majority opinion in Kropf v Sterling Heights, 391 Mich 139; 215 NW2d 179 (1974).
Following our decision, plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. While this application was still pending, the Supreme Court decided three cases, *fn2 all of which, like the present case, involved zoning restrictions on mobile home parks. The Supreme Court, in lieu of taking any action on plaintiffs' application, remanded the matter to us "for ...