Case law

Iacco v. Bohannon

70 Mich. App. 463 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1976

Since the language used is not actionable per se, its defamatory nature, if any, must be established from the totality of the circumstances. … We find that defendant Bohannon was clothed with a qualified privilege to make such statements.

People v. Safiedine

152 Mich. App. 208 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1986

In particular, defendant argues that the prosecutor failed *216 to establish an adequate foundation for the records. … Rullo was thus a "qualified witness” within the rule’s meaning.

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.

Belmont v. Forest Hills Public Schools

114 Mich. App. 692 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1982

Interpreting the recent Supreme Court cases, this Court established a two-part inquiry to determine the applicability of the defective building exception. First, the injury must occur in a public place. … Applying this standard, the Court found that the weightroom where plaintiff was injured did not qualify as a defective building under the statute. Id., 822.

People v. Akhmedov

297 Mich. App. 745 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2012

The court mistakenly reasoned that defendant’s conviction would not qualify as a felony under federal law if defendant were sentenced to less than one year in prison for his crimes. … ’s finding that Moe was not an agent of the police for the second and third transactions was not clearly erroneous.

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.

Phillips v. Deihm

213 Mich. App. 389 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1995

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must introduce evidence sufficient to establish that (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the defendant’s breach … Accordingly, the trial court clearly erred in dismissing plaintiffs claim against Opal. Sullivan Industries, supra, p 339.

Hoffman v. Genesee County

157 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1987

grant of common law immunity which is delegated to an individual in his capacity as a governmental servant; the immunity conferred is a qualified grant of immunity. … Additionally, the individual defendant peace officers, under the circumstances of this case, are also entitled to a qualified grant of immunity under § 427b of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq.; MSA 14.800(1) et

Dextrom v. Wexford County

287 Mich. App. 406 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2010

Defendants argued that (1) the landfill operation qualified as a governmental function, (2) defendants had not operated the landfill for the primary purpose of making a profit, and (3) user fees had always “almost exclusively … expert testimony, MRE 702, provides: If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified

Powers v. City of Troy

28 Mich. App. 24 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1970

immunity on these materials: the good cause requirement set forth in Rule 34 and the work product doctrine of Hickman v. … The language of the Court in Covington clearly implies that, despite the July 1965 amendment, *37 “statements” are probably still covered as “writings” by our work product Rule 306.2.

Croton v. Gillis

104 Mich. App. 104 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1981

Defendant, if he had any privilege to comment as he did, had merely a qualified privilege. See New York Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US 254 ; 84 S Ct 710 ; 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), and the discussion infra. … Plaintiffs allegations of libel and malice are clearly sufficient to avoid summary judgment based on governmental immunity.

Diehl v. Danuloff

242 Mich. App. 120 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2000

This Court reasoned: Clearly, the 1986 [governmental immunity] act represents a comprehensive review of governmental immunity. … “Mere qualified immunity is not enough protection to prevent the chilling effect of a potential suit on the exercise of a social worker’s professional judgment and discretion in operating as an arm of the Probate Court to

Williamson v. Department of Mental Health

176 Mich. App. 752 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 1, 1989

governmental immunity. … that knowledge, we conclude that there is ample support in the record establishing these elements.

Bosanic v. Motz Development, Inc

277 Mich. App. 277 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2008

While perhaps not drafted as clearly as it could have been, subsection 2 can best be understood as stating that this statutory scheme replaces any other common-law exceptions to immunity that might otherwise exist for sewer … It clearly provides that a “claimant may seek compensation” if the listed requirements are satisfied.

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.

Peters v. Gaggos

72 Mich. App. 138 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 1976

This uncertainty arose as a result of the Supreme Court’s 1965 amendment to subrule 306.2 deleting that portion of the rule which granted qualified immunity for the discovery of any "statement” obtained from a witness in … They are, however, if obtained in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial, work product and, therefore, cloaked with a qualified immunity without regard to whether they are prepared by an attorney or by some other

Adams v. Department of Transportation

253 Mich. App. 431 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 2003

In determining whether a decision is to be applied only prospectively, a reviewing court must consider whether the decision clearly established a new principle of law, which results from overruling case law that was clear … As cogently observed by the prior Adams panel and by Judge Talbot in his dissent in Sekulov, Nawrocki clearly establishes that judicial interpretations of the governmental immunity statute generally, MCL 691.1407(1), and

Recchia v. Turner

197 Mich. App. 432 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1992

Plaintiff Chiara Recchia appeals as of right from an order of the Macomb Circuit Court granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on governmental immunity, MCR 2.116(C)(7). We reverse. … And there is no support that we can find that would prohibit including the front-end loader within the definition of motor vehicle just because it also qualifies as a piece of "special mobile equipment.”

Cannarbor Inc v. Department of Treasury

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2025

The MMMA’s grant of immunity to primary caregivers is found in MCL 333.26424, which states, in relevant part: (b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card … Additionally, the 2011 letter itself clearly stated that the MMMA “does not provide for state-regulated retail stores or dispensaries.”

William C Reichenbach Co. v. State

94 Mich. App. 323 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1979

The independence of such universities will not be permitted to "thwart the clearly established public policy” in this state. Id., at 139. … We conclude that the payment bonding statute does not represent "a clearly established public policy” in this state.