Case law

Gordin v. William Beaumont Hospital

180 Mich. App. 488 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1989

It was also held that the statute "only seeks to delineate the partial immunity afforded in terms to indicate that *493 immunity does not exist for persons whose actual function is to respond to emergency situations.” … Howard was required to allege facts in his summary disposition motion establishing the absence of gross negligence and wilful and wanton misconduct in order to qualify for immunity under the Good Samaritan statute.

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.

Hall v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc

153 Mich. App. 609 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1986

Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to establish the requisite emotional distress. … In the case at bar, it is clear that Debbie Nichols’s com *620 munication to the police enjoyed at least a qualified privilege.

Li v. Feldt

187 Mich. App. 475 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1991

Specifically, under the historical analysis method, the only judicially created exceptions to immunity which are recognized are those established in the case law prior to the enactment of the governmental tort liability act … her *490 allegations, then she can establish a claim under public nuisance.

Apostolos Paul Margaris v. Genesee County

324 Mich. App. 111 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 2018

High level executive officials “may qualify for absolute immunity because they have broad-based jurisdiction or extensive authority similar to that of a judge or legislator.” … But the actual value of the meat that had been stolen from Popoff and which plaintiff purchased was not definitively established.

WEAVER EX REL. ESTATE OF WEAVER v. City of Detroit

249 Mich. App. 801 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2002

It still must be determined whether streetlights are clearly implicated within the entire definition of "highway" because an action cannot be maintained under the highway exception statute unless it is clearly within the … That is, we simply cannot conclude that a streetlight is clearly implicated within the entire definition of "highway." Defendant was entitled to governmental immunity. We are, however, bound by Ridley (On Remand).

Drewes v. Grand Valley State Colleges

106 Mich. App. 776 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1981

667 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975). 9 In the instant case plaintiff asserts that the act unreasonably discriminates between employees of insured contractors, who may still maintain a cause of action against a third party who would qualify … This is clearly a legitimate state interest, and it is well served by holding the principal liable for workers’ compensation payments where the contractor is uninsured.

Radloff v. State

116 Mich. App. 745 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1982

Clearly this was a proprietary function. … To summarize the preceding, we conclude that the following findings by the trial court were not clearly erroneous: (1) the defendants were not entitled to the defense of governmental immunity; (2) the defendants were in complete

Marchyok v. City of Ann Arbor

260 Mich. App. 684 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2004

Defendant moved for summary disposition, relying on the doctrine of governmental immunity. … In response to the dissent, we note that it is interesting that the dissent cites MCR 7.215(J)(1), as this is the same rule that requires us to follow the precedent established by Carr, supra.

In re Deng

314 Mich. App. 615 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2016

While dispositional orders must be “ ‘appropriate for the welfare of the juvenile and society in view of the facts proven and ascertained,’ ” they will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. … As empowered by the Legislature, the DHHS 5 has the authority to establish procedures for *628 the control of diseases and infections, including the ability to establish vaccination requirements. MCL 333.5111(2)(c).

Palomba v. City of East Detroit

112 Mich. App. 209 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1982

The standard is whether the claims are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery. … In order to establish an implied contract to indemnify, there must be a special relationship between the parties or a course of conduct whereby one party undertakes to perform a certain service and impliedly assures indemnification

in Re Deng Minors

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2016

Because the trial court has the authority to make medical decisions for children under its jurisdiction over respondent’s objections to immunization and the court did not clearly err by determining that vaccination was appropriate … As empowered by the Legislature, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services5 (DHHS) has the authority to establish procedures for the control of diseases and infections, including the ability to establish immunization

Brian Zezula v. Nina Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2025

The established “statutory exceptions to the governmental immunity provided to the state and its agencies are the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, … In other words, a governmental agency continues to enjoy immunity from tort liability unless MCL 460.732 provides otherwise or one of the established exceptions to governmental immunity applies.

Est of Dale Wehner v. Tri-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Corp

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2025

The trial court granted summary disposition to defendants after concluding that the immunity provisions of the emergency medical services act (EMSA), MCL 333.20901 et seq., applied and that plaintiff failed to establish that … Ultimately, the inquiry is quite simple: “to qualify for immunity, a defendant must show, among other things, that the act or omission occurred ‘in the treatment of a patient.’ ” Bartalsky, 337 Mich App at 392.

McCann v. State

47 Mich. App. 326 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 1973

"The Michigan Court of Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction and the State of Michigan having clearly retained its defense of sovereign immunity in this particular action asserted against it by the plaintiff this Court … The issue there was whether the Legislature clearly understood the impact of the distinction between "torts” and "negligence”.

Kewadin Casinos Gaming v. Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2026

If the real party in interest is indeed the Tribe, then tribal sovereign immunity applies. Id. at 163. But that is clearly not the case. … Significantly, Indian tribes have long been “recognized . . . as distinct, independent political communities qualified to exercise many of the powers and prerogatives of self- government,” Plains Commerce Bank v Long Family

People of Michigan v. Michael Dean Dupre

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2020

This section grants qualifying patients broad immunity from prosecution. Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-396. Section 7 of the MMMA on the other hand, prohibits specific acts that negate immunity. … Therefore, we discern no intent within the MMMA to immunize the visibly impaired driver from prosecution.

Freiburger v. Department of Mental Health

161 Mich. App. 316 · 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. [Ross, supra at 647-648 .] … Clearly, a specific factual scenario may support both tort and contract claims. See and compare Hawkins v McGee, 84 NH 114; 146 A 641 (1929).

Rambus v. Wayne County General Hospital

193 Mich. App. 268 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1992

Liss and the hospital was established and that Dr. Liss furnished his services on behalf of the hospital. The trial court thus con- *270 eluded that Dr. … Liss asserts that even if he is not an employee of the hospital, he clearly was acting as its agent at the times relevant to this case.

Hinojosa v. Department of Natural Resources

263 Mich. App. 537 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2004

The motion may be granted only “where the claims are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” … See Horace v City of Pontiac, 456 Mich 744, 749 ; 575 NW2d 762 (1998) (citations omitted), in which the Court noted, “It is now well established, as the result of this Court’s seminal governmental immunity opinion in Ross