Case law

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).

Stringwell v. Ann Arbor Pub. School Dist.

686 N.W.2d 825 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2004

If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. No further judicial construction is required or permitted. … The record establishes that a teacher for the school told the student to start the vehicle so that the class could check the vehicle's fluid levels.

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.

Baker v. Couchman

271 Mich. App. 174 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2006

We also reject defendant’s contention that, even if he is not entitled to absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5), he is entitled to qualified immunity under MCL 691.1407(2). … As already noted, defendant’s actions interfering with a criminal investigation clearly fell outside the scope of his authority.

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

Cheboygan Sportsman Club v. Cheboygan County Prosecuting Attorney

307 Mich. App. 71 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2014

THE SPORT SHOOTING RANGES ACT AND IMMUNITY A. … I am not a proponent of chaos nor do I propose to disregard established legal principles.

By Lo Oil Co. v. Department of Treasury

267 Mich. App. 19 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2005

A trial 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. … “If the undisputed facts show that the defendant’s conduct violated no clearly established constitutional standards, qualified immunity applies as a matter of law.” Id.

Yono v. Department of Transportation

306 Mich. App. 671 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2014

presenting evidence sufficient to establish, at the very least, that there is a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of immunity. … to present evidence that establishes a question of fact as to whether the movant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law.

Paddock v. Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Railway Co.

225 Mich. App. 526 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 1997

MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2368(2), quoted above, clearly states that county road commissions will be immune from liability for failure to erect warning signs at railroad intersections “unless such devices or signs were ordered … Clearly, under Cryderman , the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant highway commission would have been improper.

Citizens Insurance v. Bloomfield Township

209 Mich. App. 484 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1995

The trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity has clearly been recognized by our Supreme Court. … Thus, plaintiff must affirmatively establish that the trespass-nuisance exception applies. There can be little doubt that the first two elements of trespass-nuisance have been established by plaintiff.

Jones v. Bitner

300 Mich. App. 65 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2013

Accordingly, this Court held that “through the Child Protection Law the Legislature intended to abrogate established immunity rales of the common law related to persons required to report abuse and neglect.” … In spite of its knowledge regarding the GTLA, the Legislature has not amended the mandatory reporting statute to clearly provide that it abrogates the later-enacted governmental immunity statute.

Walker v. Cahalan

97 Mich. App. 346 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 1980

Michigan case law does not afford absolute immunity from tort liability to a high level executive official acting in discretionary matters in the course of his official duties. … Such an official is entitled to no more than a qualified privilege, Tocco, supra, 635 , Raymond v Croll, 233 Mich 268 ; 206 NW 556 (1925). *356 The instant defendant was found to have such a qualified privilege by the United

Meadows v. City of Detroit

164 Mich. App. 418 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1987

We do not believe, however, that this case established the trial board’s entitlement to absolute immunity. … To the extent that the court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s contract claims was based on governmental immunity, that decision is clearly erroneous.

Scameheorn v. Bucks

167 Mich. App. 302 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1988

Where immunity from *307 suit is at issue, the complaint must plead facts in avoidance of immunity. … In our opinion, the allegations in plaintiffs complaint failed to establish the existence of an intentionally created nuisance.

Debra Fields v. Smart

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2015

Generally, governmental agencies in Michigan are statutorily immune from tort liability. … However, because the statute requires written notice, clearly a conversation over a phone call cannot satisfy the notice requirement.

Veldhuis v. Allan

164 Mich. App. 131 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 1987

The function of a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10), is well established: A motion for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(3), now MCR 2.116(0(10), asserts that no genuine issue of material fact exists … The immunity in this section shall not apply to a person, organization, or entity that acts with malice.

Lockett v. City of Detroit Police Department

164 Mich. App. 466 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1987

The reasonableness of an official’s conduct should be measured by reference to clearly established laws, so that if a legal principle is not clearly established at a given time, the official could not reasonably be expected … In determining whether a body of law is clearly established, the court should not consider the very general body of law, but the more particularized and thus more relevant issue.

King v. Arbic

159 Mich. App. 452 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1987

In any event, defendant clearly prevails on the immunity issue. B. … Because all of the Ross elements are present defendant is clearly entitled to governmental immunity on the nonintentional negligent prosecution charge.

Genesee County Road Commission v. State Highway Commission

86 Mich. App. 294 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 1978

The Court of Claims was established by the Legislature under the authority of Const 1963, art 9, § 22 and art 6, § 26. … Thus, since the maintenance of roadways is clearly a governmental function, Thomas v Dep’t of State Highway, 398 Mich 1, 11 ; 247 NW2d 530 (1976), plaintiffs’ right to bring this action is dependent upon the applicability

Peters v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 485 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1996

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should be granted "only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery.” … We agree with defendant that the element of control required by Hadfield cannot be established under the facts of this case.