Shoemaker v. City of Howell

Howell, Michigan undertook to refurbish and landscape its streets and removed a tree planted in the curb strip by Shoemaker. Shoemaker claims that when he protested, city workers told him “that’s not your property, you have no say.” Later, Code Enforcement Officer Donahue twice left a door-hanger notice informing Shoemaker that his lawn was in violation of the Ordinance, and obtained compliance. A third time, Donahue left a door-hanger notice, and mailed Notice of Ordinance Violation, but returned to find that, although the lawn had been mowed, the grass on the curb strip remained in excess of the limitation. Donahue returned several times and spoke with Shoemaker’s daughter. Shoemaker contacted City Hall to complain about the interaction, which his daughter described as “nerve [w]racking.” Shoemaker insisted that he would not mow the curb strip because he had been told by city employees that the area was city property, not his. The city hired a contractor to mow Shoemaker’s curb strip twice and charged him $600. Shoemaker claimed procedural and substantive due process violations. The court granted him summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed with instructions to dismiss. No fundamental right is implicated by the Ordinance requirement and it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. View "Shoemaker v. City of Howell" on Justia Law