Mandamus; Southfield Educ Ass’n v Board of Educ of Southfield Pub Sch; Local governmental authorities’ right to “reasonable control” of highways, streets, alleys, & public places; Const 1963, art 7, § 29; Mootness; Declaratory relief

In this case involving access to wastewater treatment, the court held that plaintiff-Salem Springs and defendant/cross-plaintiff--Salem Township (the Township) did not satisfy any of the four mandamus elements, making dismissal of their mandamus claims proper. But it reversed the dismissal of Salem Township’s claim for declaratory relief, which was based on mootness, and remanded as to that claim. Salem Township sought to construct a sewer line under a road in a county road commission right of way that “would traverse almost the entirety of” defendant-Superior Township. Salem Township submitted a permit application to construct the sewer line within Superior Township. When Superior Township did not process the application, Salem Springs (which owned land in Salem Township it was seeking to develop) filed this action. The trial court later dismissed the mandamus claims as moot. The court concluded it did so based “on the erroneous belief that the only relief Salem Springs and the Township sought with respect to their mandamus claims was to have the Superior Township defendants render a decision on the permit application.” It determined that Salem Township and Salem Springs “presented a controversy, to wit: they believe they have a right to have the Township’s permit application approved when Superior Township denied it. The trial court is the appropriate forum to determine whether that is true. Thus ‘mootness’ was not the appropriate basis on which to dismiss the mandamus claims.” However, the claims failed on the merits. As to the first two mandamus elements, the court held that Salem Springs and Salem Township “had a right to have the permit application considered under the standards set forth in” Superior Township’s ordinance, “and it was considered under those standards. The Superior Township defendants had a duty to consider the application under the standards adopted in the ordinance” and did so in denying the permit application. As to the third element, the court found that judgment calls were involved here as opposed to a ministerial act. As to the final element, Salem Springs and Salem “Township could have sought to amend their complaints, and/or could have left their substantive due process claims active instead of dismissing them. There was thus an alternative remedy available to them.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.