Case law

Rosacrans v. Kingon

154 Mich. App. 381 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1986

The trial court granted the motion on governmental immunity grounds and plaintiff appealed arguing, inter alia, that pursuant to Ross governmental immunity was not a defense to a claim of negligent hiring and supervision … However, in order to establish bad faith under Ross , it would seem that based upon the policy of the qualified immunity doctrine a plaintiff would have to establish that the governmental actor engaged in malicious or intentionally

Radu v. Herndon & Herndon Investigations, Inc.

302 Mich. App. 363 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2013

And the Court held that “ ‘[m’Jalice’ is clearly a word that has acquired a peculiar meaning in the law.” Id. at 683 . … And, both statutory provisions clearly grant the protection of immunity to persons who have provided information related to investigations of suspected arson and suspected insurance fraud if they acted without malice.

Poppen v. Tovey

256 Mich. App. 351 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 2003

The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant Tovey after concluding that the undisputed facts did not establish that Tovey had acted in a grossly negligent manner in failing to mark the area behind his … Noting the well-established principle that the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity must be narrowly construed, the Court concluded that the phrase “ ‘operation of a motor vehicle’ means that the motor vehicle is

Veeneman v. State of Michigan

143 Mich. App. 694 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1985

to the governmental immunity act.” … The activity is clearly not proprietary in nature and does not come within any of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity.

Allen v. Bloomfield Hills School District

281 Mich. App. 49 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2008

We agree with the trial court that a plaintiff seeking to avoid governmental immunity from tort liability through the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, must establish a “bodily injury.” … The triad court properly grants a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) when the undisputed facts establish that the moving party is entitled to immunity granted by law.

Li v. Wong

170 Mich. App. 256 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1988

While the three-justice plurality led by Justice Brickley clearly holds that there is no intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity, 1 we do not believe that the opinions of the concurring justices can be read … That opinion clearly indicates that Justice Archer believes that intentional nuisance should remain an exception to governmental immunity, stating that he "would hold that trespass, nuisance, and intentional nuisance, as

Faigenbaum v. Oakland Medical Center

143 Mich. App. 303 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1985

While Ross clearly reaffirmed the pre-Ross rule that a proprietary function is not entitled to governmental immunity, proprietary function is defined as any activity conducted primarily for pecuniary profit. … Similar orders were issued in six other immunity cases which were to be argued with Ross. Clearly, the practicing bar was on notice that the former rules Concerning governmental immunity would be changed.

Dn v. Gilead Sciences Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2025

“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted when a claim is so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Id. … The plain language of the PREP Act clearly grants Gilead and St. Joseph immunity from all liability for injuries that were not caused by willful misconduct. Because plaintiffs have not alleged that Gilead or St.

Estate of Diana Lykos Voutsaras v. Gary L Bender

326 Mich. App. 667 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2019

First, the policy considerations in Maiden were clearly focused on the freedom witnesses must have to give damaging testimony without any fear of possible reprisal. … However, whether witness immunity protects the Mogill defendants from giving professionally incompetent testimony, which might or might not be favorable, was clearly not a matter considered by the Maiden court.

Kenneth McKenzie v. Deparment of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2020

immunity must be strictly interpreted in favor of the sovereign. … Thus, Congress has clearly and explicitly directed that a state does not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits for violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act—claims that were asserted by plaintiffs.

Davis v. Eddie

130 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1983

Although the case of Imbler v Pachtman, 424 US 409 ; 96 S Ct 984 ; 47 L Ed 2d 128 (1976), involves a split decision as to the finding of absolute immunity as opposed to qualified immunity, the majority opinion, favoring absolute … An assertion that the prosecutor violated his professional code of ethics is not sufficient to establish that the prosecutor acted outside the scope of his office.

De Sanchez v. Genoves-Andrews

161 Mich. App. 245 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1987

If a plaintiff successfully pleads and establishes a non-tort cause of action, § 7 will not bar recovery simply because the underlying facts could have also established a tort cause of action. … Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that *257 § 1983 was enacted.

McDowell v. City of Detroit

264 Mich. App. 337 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2005

The trial court specifically delineated those claims that it found to *344 involve governmental immunity and identified only plaintiffs tort claims. Clearly, the tort claims are within our scope of review. … The assertion of revenues is not the establishment of a profit.

Michigan National Bank v. Michigan Livestock Exchange

165 Mich. App. 243 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1987

The exchange asserts that it qualifies as a bailee and is entitled to the immunity offered by the above section. … The circuit court found the exchange did not qualify as a bailee because the "trucker’s receipts” pursuant to which the exchange held the livestock for sale did not qualify as documents of title under the Uniform Commercial

Rusnak v. Walker

271 Mich. App. 567 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2006

Despite Justice Markman’s acknowledgment in Barr of limitations on immunity under SASA, and the conflict analysis in Dale II, subsequent decisions of this Court have not qualified their findings of absolute immunity for enumerated … To hold that MCL 408.342 provides absolute immunity for individual skiers would be reading a provision into the statute that clearly is not there. Roberts, supra at 63 .

Young v. Barker

158 Mich. App. 709 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1987

The Sterling Heights defendants argued that they were immune because the city and the chief of police are entitled to absolute immunity and the officers are immune because of the district court’s actions at the arraignment … Clearly, Barker had probable cause to arrest.

Yarrick v. Village of Kent City

189 Mich. App. 627 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1991

This is clearly insufficient to establish a public nuisance. However, in paragraph 28(A) of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendant "improperly created and allowed to exist grass-covered holes.” … If plaintiffs can establish that defendant did create the hole, then they can establish the existence of a public nuisance.

Marley v. Huron Valley Men's Facility Warden

165 Mich. App. 78 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1987

The court may grant the motion only when the claim, on the pleadings alone, is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right to recovery. … The trial court found with respect to Count i as to Warden Grant that the training, supervision and assignment of employees was clearly discretionary.

Gadigian v. City of Taylor

282 Mich. App. 179 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 2009

1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.” … Gadigian clearly fell when her left toe struck the raised portion of the sidewalk, propelling her forward.

Pawlak v. Redox Corp.

182 Mich. App. 758 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1990

Plaintiffs implied contract claim was so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could justify a right to recovery. Scameheorn, supra. … The amendment clearly requires (1) a deliberate act by the employer and (2) that the employer specifically intended an injury.