Case law

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.

Martin v. Michigan

129 Mich. App. 100 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 1983

the trial court must accept as true all of the plaintiff’s factual allega *105 tions as well as any conclusions which can reasonably be drawn therefrom and determine whether the plaintiffs claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly … Thus, the existence of a nuisance per se is established by proof of the act which created it and becomes a nuisance as a matter of law. The defendant’s liability is established at that point.

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

People of Michigan v. Vernon Bernhardt Tackman Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 2, 2017

Because neither defendant qualified for the MMMA’s § 4 immunity, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing defendants’ cases on this basis. … Because Horner did not qualify for immunity, no agent of his may claim immunity derived from Horner. The parties raise additional arguments that were never addressed by the trial court.

Erin Kosch v. Traverse City Area Public Schools

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2024

According to plaintiff, Berck violated a “clearly established right” and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Plaintiff refers to federal law regarding qualified immunity, while defendants refer to state law regarding gross negligence under MCL 691.1407. Both sides are incorrect.

Cook v. Bennett

94 Mich. App. 93 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1979

Clearly city councils are invested with this authority and their duty runs to the whole public. … A similar problem was addressed in Cole v Rife, 77 Mich App 545 ; 258 NW2d 555 (1977), where defendant police officer was sued for negligence in establishing a road block and then directing plaintiff to proceed into the path

Hunter v. Sisco

300 Mich. App. 229 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2013

Moreover, defendant argued that it is not liable for any damages because plaintiff failed to establish a serious impairment of body function. … In contrast, because the Legislature clearly intended to limit the exposure of governmental entities to tort litigation, the small number of exceptions to that immunity must be read and construed narrowly, as in Wesche.

People of Michigan v. Vernon Bernhardt Tackman Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 2, 2017

Because neither defendant qualified for the MMMA’s § 4 immunity, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing defendants’ cases on this basis. … Because Horner did not qualify for immunity, no agent of his may claim immunity derived from Horner. The parties raise additional arguments that were never addressed by the trial court.

Kik v. Sbraccia

268 Mich. App. 690 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2006

wrongful death act cannot modify the immunity established under the GTLA. … The statute does not limit or otherwise establish the types of damages that are recoverable from the government when liability is established.

Ridley v. City of Detroit

231 Mich. App. 381 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1998

“It is a well-established principle of statutory construction that the Legislature is presumed to act with knowledge of this Court’s statutory interpretations.” … A trial court’s findings of fact may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C); Andrews v Pentwater Twp, 222 Mich App 491, 493 ; 563 NW2d 713 (1997).

Everhart v. Board of Education of Roseville Community Schools

108 Mich. App. 218 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1981

The allegations clearly claim that the individuals were negligent in the performance of their discretionary governmental duties. No ultra vires acts are alleged. … The allegations, if true, would establish that the supervisors were negligent while acting in the scope of their employment and, thus, immune from liability under the governmental immunity statute.

Hush v. Devilbiss Co.

77 Mich. App. 639 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1977

Therefore, on the authority of Paige the immunity doctrine would clearly apply if Hush were the mother of Richard. Defendant Hush has thoroughly researched the law of other jurisdictions. … Consequently, we now find necessary a review of the policy considerations which led to the establishment of the immunity rule in order to decide in this case if extension to persons in loco parentis is warranted.

Gidday v. Wakefield

90 Mich. App. 752 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1979

We then determine whether the claims are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that a right to recovery cannot be predicated upon any factual development. … The aforementioned Supreme Court decisions establish that proceedings of local legislative and quasi-legislative bodies are cloaked by an absolute privilege.

Fox v. Ogemaw County

208 Mich. App. 697 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1995

Assuming the existence of a nuisance per se exception to governmental immunity, see Li, supra, we also conclude that the trial court’s finding of a nuisance was clearly erroneous. … Because plaintiff failed to establish either a trespass-nuisance or a nuisance per se, the trial court clearly erred in finding defendants liable to her for damages; they were immune from liability under § 7(1) of the governmental

Rocco v. Department of Mental Health

114 Mich. App. 792 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1982

If plaintiffs present satisfactory proofs establishing a contract and a breach of the contract, they would be entitled to recover because governmental immunity does not bar their contract action. … Under the reasoning of Howell v Outer Drive Hospital, 66 Mich App 142 ; 238 NW2d 553 (1975), Count II is redundant and does not qualify as an exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity."

Hamburger v. Henry Ford Hospital

91 Mich. App. 580 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1979

Non-emergency admissions have careful, even exhaustive, admissions procedures, clearly establishing the hospital-patient relationship before the patient enters the hospital. … In Michigan, hospitals clearly have derivative liability for negligence of their employees in dealing with their patients within the scope of their authority and sometimes even for non-employees.

Canon v. Bernstein

144 Mich. App. 604 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1985

Accepting as true a plaintiffs allegations, and any conclusions that may reasonably be drawn therefrom, the motion must be denied unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development … 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.” 420 Mich 647 -648.

Wechsler v. Wayne County Road Commission

215 Mich. App. 579 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1996

immunity below. … The defendant clearly could have done much more to focus attention on the issue of threshold liability.

Paul v. Wayne County Department of Public Service

271 Mich. App. 617 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2006

Clearly, the holding in Grimes , if applied to this case, requires summary disposition in favor of defendant. … The threshold question in determining the application of a new decision is whether the decision in fact clearly established a new principle of law.

Hendricks v. Southfield Public Schools

178 Mich. App. 672 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1989

The court must accept as true all wellpled factual allegations plus any conclusions to be reasonably drawn therefrom and may grant the motion only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual … To establish a claim of intentional nuisance against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must show that there is a condition which is a nuisance and that the agency intended to create that condition.