holding that where it is alleged that the State has violated rights conferred by the Michigan constitution, governmental immunity is not available in state court action, and a claim for damages against the State “arising from violation by the state of the Michigan Constitution may be recognized in appropriate cases"
How later courts described this case
- holding that where it is alleged that the State has violated rights conferred by the Michigan constitution, governmental immunity is not available in state court action, and a claim for damages against the State “arising from violation by the state of the Michigan Constitution may be recognized in appropriate cases"
- holding that where it is alleged that state has violated rights conferred by constitution, governmental immunity is not available in state court action, but declining to infer a right to sue the state for damages on the basis of a violation of the Michigan constitution
- stating that “at least four Justices concur in every holding, statement and disposition of this memorandum opinion” but not identifying which justices agreed with which of the seven propositions or why they agreed
- containing a full discussion of Bivens, but declining to find a viable Bivens action under 1908 Michigan Constitution after adoption of 1963 Michigan Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Levin, J.
(separate opinion). I concur in the result in Smith as stated in part v of Justice Boyle’s opinion but, as stated in Justice Archer’s opinion, would not limit the remand to a determination whether the alleged constitutional violation occurred by "virtue of a governmental custom or policy” or whether "a damage remedy is proper.”