Case law

Gordon v. Sadasivan

144 Mich. App. 113 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 1985

did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which the defendant knew of should have known. … We also find that plaintiff has alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

State v. McQueen

293 Mich. App. 644 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2011

In addition, § 4(i) provides immunity for a “person” who assists a registered qualifying patient with “using or administering marihuana.” … Defendants do not claim immunity on the basis of being in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana; they claim immunity on the basis of their assistance to registered qualifying patients with “using or administering”

People v. Bylsma

294 Mich. App. 219 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2011

SECTION 4 IMMUNITY The MMMA provides a registration system for “qualifying patients” and “primary caregivers.” 3 See MCL 333.26426. … to immunity under § 4(b) of the MMMA.

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

322 Mich. App. 648 · 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.

Karchefske v. Department of Mental Health

143 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1985

S Ct 855 ; 55 L Ed 2d 24 (1978) (qualified immunity for *6 prison officials and officers), Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 US 232 ; 94 S Ct 1683 ; 40 L Ed 2d 90 (1974) (qualified immunity for governor and other executive officers) … Clearly, the sovereign immunity of the states was well established at common law at the time that § 1983 was enacted.

Bischoff v. Calhoun County Prosecutor

173 Mich. App. 802 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1988

which is essentially investigative or administrative and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Frohriep v. Flanagan

278 Mich. App. 665 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2008

Lower level officers, *677 employees, and agents are extended only qualified immunity. This immunity exists when the individual is engaged in discretionary acts which are performed in good faith. … could establish the claim and justify recovery.”

Oliver v. Smith

290 Mich. App. 678 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2010

The wrist and hand injury is not clearly attributable to defendant alone and instead may just as fairly be attributed to plaintiff. … The Odom Court stated that employees enjoy a qualified right to immunity if (1) the employee’s challenged acts were undertaken during the course of employment and the employee was acting, or reasonably believed he or she

Citizens for Uniform Taxation v. Northport Public School District

239 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2000

Statutes are presumed constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. … Section 1211 treats nonresidents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property exactly the same as Michigan residents who own property that does not qualify as homestead property, neither are eligible for the

Robert Reeves v. Wayne County

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2025

and therefore entitled to only the protection of the qualified immunity.” … Second, we hold that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity only for judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts.

Steele v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 710 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

Consequently, Stone was entitled to qualified immunity under Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 592 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 3 Furthermore, plaintiff’s claim under 42 USC 1983 fails because he has *717 … not established deliberate indifference on Stone’s part.

Dean v. Childs

262 Mich. App. 48 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2004

involved ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” 11 If no constitutional violation occurred, the defendant has qualified immunity from liability. 12 “Qualified immunity … Childs claims common-law immunity under the public duty doctrine.

John Holeton v. City of Livonia

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 7, 2019

She -3- also identified grounds for concluding that she had qualified immunity and that the Holetons could not establish grounds for avoiding her qualified immunity. … An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Chivas v. Koehler

182 Mich. App. 467 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1990

Thus, we find he would qualify under Ross for absolute immunity. … The motion can only be granted if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery.

Nash v. Duncan Park Commission

304 Mich. App. 599 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2014

THE INDENTURE’S USE OF TRUST LANGUAGE Moreover, the document’s language clearly contemplates the establishment of a trust. “[I]t requires no particular form of words to create a trust.” … Although not argued by defendants, we have considered whether the Commission is a “board,” thereby qualifying as immune under MCL 691.1401(e).

Jackson County Drain Commissioner v. Village of Stockbridge

270 Mich. App. 273 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 2006

Drains extending into more than 1 county or affecting lands in more than 1 county, shall be established and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this act regulating the establishment and construction of drains … Instead, the Court clearly stated that MCL 691.1407 did not permit a trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity. Pohutski, supra at 678-679 . In doing so, the Court relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

Hickey v. Zezulka

177 Mich. App. 606 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1989

good faith or qualified immunity against plaintiffs claim pursuant to 42 USC 1983. … Moreover, even if the qualified immunity defense had been pled by Zezulka, qualified immunity is not available in this case because Zezulka was not performing a discretionary act.

Wynn v. Cole

68 Mich. App. 706 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1976

This complaint would seem clearly sufficient under that standard. A complaint in libel must include the contents of the libelous statement and must also show where the alleged libel was published. … Qualified privilege was defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Bacon v Michigan C R Co, 66 Mich 166, 170 ; 33 NW 181 (1887): "Qualified privilege * * * extends to all communications made bona ñde upon any subject-matter

VanVorous v. Burmeister

262 Mich. App. 467 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2004

the facts alleged and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established.” … The district court then concluded that because qualified immunity “allows room for an officer’s discretionary judgment,” plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, show that the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established

People of Michigan v. Vanessa Aidee Mansour

325 Mich. App. 339 · 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