Case law

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2018

The MMMA provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, and penalties in any manner, and prohibits the denial of any rights or privileges to qualifying medical marijuana patients and registered primary caregivers. … The MMMA also provides that other state law inconsistent with the MMMA may not interfere with the rights established under the MMMA.

Fisher v. Department of Mental Health

128 Mich. App. 72 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1983

Should governmental immunity be expanded beyond strict boundaries, perhaps that expansion should be by way of a conditional or qualified immunity rather than absolute. … • of activities are clearly functions of his or her employment.

People v. Anderson

293 Mich. App. 33 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2011

In order to qualify for this immunity, a person must he a “qualifying patient,” must have been issued and possess a “registry identification card,” and must not have more than “2.5 ounces of useable” marijuana or more than … Consequently, because he clearly failed to establish his § 8 defense on other grounds, it is unnecessary to determine whether Anderson had to present expert testimony in order to establish the reasonableness of the amount

Hoffman v. Warden

184 Mich. App. 328 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1990

Third, plaintiff errs in asserting that defendants in fact made the decision that he qualified as requiring treatment under § 401. … Defendants argue that Ross held that anyone responsible for establishing a policy was immune from tort liability and that allegations against defendants Ray Adams and John P.

Collins v. City of Ferndale

234 Mich. App. 625 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1999

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that the governmental immunity act is a “broad grant of immunity.” … No action may be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute. Scheurman v Dep’t of Trans *629 portation, 434 Mich 619, 630 ; 456 NW2d 66 (1990).

Mayor of Detroit v. Arms Technology, Inc.

258 Mich. App. 48 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2003

A “straw” purchase, according to plaintiffs, is one where a “[qualified] purchaser buys the gun from a licensed dealer for a person who is not qualified to purchase the firearm under federal and state regulations, such *53 … A “multiple sale” occurs when a qualified buyer purchases several guns at once or over a short period from a licensed dealer with the intention of transferring the guns to people who are not qualified to make the purchases

Kincaid v. Cardwell

300 Mich. App. 513 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 2013

However, if the parties present evidence that establishes a question of fact concerning whether the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law, summary disposition is inappropriate. Id. … to treat her and failed to refer her to someone who was qualified: No later than April 23 [sic], 2008, Dr.

Musulin v. University of Michigan Board of Regents

214 Mich. App. 277 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 1995

kinds of public operations that should not qualify for immunity, and that a government agency that owns or operates a hospital will be treated like its private sector counterparts — including being subject to liability for … We do not retain jurisdiction._ 1 We are not here concerned with plaintiffs’ ability to establish *279 defendant’s liability.

People v. Brown

297 Mich. App. 670 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2012

MCL 333.26424 provides a qualifying patient or a primary caregiver who meet the requirements of the MMMA *676 immunity from arrest, prosecution, or “penalty in any manner.” … Accordingly, the trial court held that the immunities provided to a qualifying patient or a primary caregiver under MCL 333.26424 removed the per se illegality of the possession of marijuana.

Amburgey v. Sauder

238 Mich. App. 228 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2000

By providing that a class of persons is not bound or obligated with regard to an injury and by expressly disallowing claims under enumerated circumstances, the Legislature intended to grant immunity to qualifying defendants … The signs shall be placed in a clearly visible location in close proximity to the equine activity.

Will v. Department of Civil Service

145 Mich. App. 214 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1985

away the immunity of the States”. … Moreover, in a § 1983 action for money damages, public officials have qualified immunity *225 if they acted in good faith. Baker v Detroit, 458 F Supp 379, 383 (ED Mich, 1978).

People of Michigan v. Vanessa Aidee Mansour

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2018

In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana … In other words, the language establishing limited immunity in § 4 of the MMMA expressly conditions that immunity on the person possessing no amount of marijuana that does not qualify as usable marijuana

Bates Associates, LLC v. 132 Associates, LLC

290 Mich. App. 52 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2010

Further, in response to the tribe’s argument that the form contract designed for private parties without immunity could not have established a valid waiver of its tribal immunity, the Court determined that the contract was … The nonmoving party must present more than mere allegations to establish a genuine issue of material fact for resolution at trial. Id. at 31 .

S S v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

With respect to the district defendants, then, the question is whether MCL 380.1278(8) authorizes, for the qualified students, a private cause of action and whether such an action would be subject to immunity. … These cases do not establish that a plaintiff may infer a private cause of action for damages against a governmental agency.

Fields v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation

311 Mich. App. 231 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2015

Generally, governmental agencies in Michigan are statutorily immune from tort liability. … However, because the statute requires written notice, clearly a conversation over a phone call cannot satisfy the notice requirement.

Gonyea v. Motor Parts Federal Credit Union

192 Mich. App. 74 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1991

Pursuant to MCL 421.11(b); MSA 17.511(b), any statement made to the mesc in the course of its administrative functions is absolutely privileged and the party making it is immune from suit. … The employee’s legitimate expectations may be based on stated employment policies and established procedures. Id., pp 618-619.

Niederhouse v. Palmerton

300 Mich. App. 625 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2013

Palmerton, and only insofar as the trial court held that Palmerton was acting “in the course of employment” when plaintiff was injured and therefore was entitled to qualified governmental immunity pursuant to MCL 691.1407 … Further, as a qualified airboat operator, Palmerton had previously been asked by his employer *635 to assist with giving rides at the festival.

Feyz v. Mercy Memorial Hospital

264 Mich. App. 699 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2005

Plaintiff is correct that the immunity granted under the statute is “qualified” immunity, that is, immunity only where no malice has occurred, not “complete” immunity as asserted by the Defendants. … The contrast between the Shulman line of cases and the Zoneraich line is not that Shulman established *718 special immunity for private hospitals from review of its staffing decisions.

People of Michigan v. Callen Trent Latz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2016

Thus, MCL 750.474 clearly subjects persons in compliance with the MMMA to prosecution despite that compliance, and it is therefore impermissible. … Second, Latz has not established that the act is valid under no set of circumstances. Third, I then conclude that there is no positive conflict in the laws.

S S v. State of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

With respect to the district defendants, then, the question is whether MCL 380.1278(8) authorizes, for the qualified students, a private cause of action and whether such an action would be subject to immunity. … These cases do not establish that a plaintiff may infer a private cause of action for damages against a governmental agency.