for the Ambassador Bridge. While DIBC contends that its predecessor, ATC, had not obtained all the necessary property rights when the War Department issued a navigational permit for the Ambassador Bridge, at that time, DIBC was treated as a quasi-governmental entity that possessed certain powers of eminent domain. Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Commodities Export Co., 279 Mich.App. 662, 760 N.W.2d 565, 568-69 (2008) (describing a Michigan law that provided that bridge companies had “the power to condemn any and all real estate ... deemed necessary for the purposes of such corporation”) (citing Detroit Int’l Bridge Co. v. Am. Seed Co., 249 Mich. 289, 294, 228 N.W. 791 (Mich.Sup.Ct.1930)); but see Commodities Export Co. v. Detroit Int’l Bridge Co., 695 F.3d 518, 527 n. 7 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). On this record, the Court finds that the
holding that land dedicated for a public street may not be leased to a private entity for private use holding that while dibc appears to be in the habit of unilaterally condemning land that it does not own the bridge company must be treated as a private entity lacking authority to condemn land holding that the oneida tribe could not unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over land through openmarket purchases from current titleholders even though the land had previously been reservation land holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that in action by property owner to recover land taken by eminent domain current titleholder to land might be necessary party if district court were to restore land to plaintiff