Case law

Lins v. Evening News Ass'n

129 Mich. App. 419 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1983

The state libel laws enjoy no “talismanic immunity” from consti *425 tutional limitations. 6 Freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment. … Last, the Supreme Court said that actual malice necessary to defeat the conditional qualified privilege, which, of course, existed here, can be established by inference and, if there are genuine issues of material fact, the

Harris v. University of Michigan Board of Regents

219 Mich. App. 679 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1997

Thus, in Hutchins , the federal court clearly considered MSU’s operation of its intercollegiate women’s basketball program to be a governmental, not a proprietary, function. … Plaintiff was unable to establish that profit was the university’s primary motive in operating its athletic program or that intercollegiate athletics was not normally supported by taxes.

Buckner v. City of Lansing

274 Mich. App. 672 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 2007

Thus, while a defect in the sidewalk itself would be required to avoid governmental immunity if this were a natural accumulation case, Haliw does not establish that rule for this case involving unnatural accumulation. 5 * … Clearly, the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint against the city in these cases is the unnatural accumulation of snow and ice that prevented Buckner and Wright from using the sidewalk.

Kuzinski v. Boretti

182 Mich. App. 177 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1989

Clearly, defendant’s employees were not in "actual physical control” of the ambulance when the accident occurred. Rather, codefendant David Boretti was operating the vehicle. … However, plaintiffs have not, in answer to the motion for summary disposition, brought forth specific facts or evidence to establish the existence of a material factual dispute, as required.

Mosqueda v. MacOmb County Youth Home

132 Mich. App. 462 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1984

The panel concluded: "Since Westlake establishes the validity of a claim for deliberate indifference, this Court concludes that the district court’s dismissal of this complaint as frivolous was clearly erroneous. … The claims were therefore not clearly unenforceable and plaintiff was entitled to offer further factual development of her claims.

Keagan Farris v. John H McKaig III

324 Mich. App. 349 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 2018

Based on the duties of an LGAL, it is clearly a guardian; after an LGAL is appointed in child protective proceedings, it has the statutory authority and duty to care for the child by advocating for the child’s best interests … Despite the fact that MCL 712A.13a differentiates between a GAL and an LGAL, MCL 712A.13a(1) begins with the qualifier, “As used in this section and sections 2, 6b, 13b, 17c, 17d, 18f, 19, 19a, 19b, and 19c of this chapter

Stringwell v. Ann Arbor Public School District

262 Mich. App. 709 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 2004

Our Supreme Court has explained the well-established rules of statutory construction: The foremost rule, and our primary task in construing a statute, is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. … If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have in *712 tended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.

Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit

261 Mich. App. 801 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2004

not include sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.[ [12] ] *835 A municipality's duty with regard to county highways is established … the one-way street, (c) a municipality fails to provide lighting at an *838 intersection heavily used by motorists and pedestrians resulting in a car-pedestrian accident, or (d) a new road is constructed intersecting an established

Reardon v. Department of Mental Health

157 Mich. App. 505 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1987

Thus, plaintiff had established an exception to governmental immunity. … That finding was not clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C).

Attorney General v. Ankersen

148 Mich. App. 524 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1986

He established and incorporated Ankersen Resources Systems, Inc. … Clearly, however, the Supreme Court in Disappearing Lakes did not overrule its prior decisions on the issue and this Court remains bound by these earlier decisions.

Weaver v. Duff Norton Co.

115 Mich. App. 286 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1982

and consequent liability rather than to immunity. … Section 1287(1) of the School Code of 1976, MCL 380.1287(1); MSA 15.41287(1), authorizes school boards to establish vocational education programs: "The board of a school district other than a primary school district may establish

People of Michigan v. Callen Trent Latz

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 2016

In reverse order, if such an irreconcilable conflict exists, the MMMA clearly and unambiguously does preclude defendant’s conviction. … If persons comply with the MMMA, it grants “broad” “immunity” from prosecution. MCL 333.26424(a); Braska, 307 Mich App at 357-358.

Michael J Bedford v. Derek S Witte

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2016

Moreover, this Court reviews de novo, as a question of law, whether there exists a privilege that immunizes a defendant from liability for defamation. … The Court specifically stated, “The immunity is a qualified one, but defendant has met the qualifications that the report must be fair and true.” Id.

People v. Ventura

316 Mich. App. 671 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2016

In particular, defendant argues that the affidavit failed to mention that he was a qualifying patient under the MMMA as well as a caregiver. … Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence merely because the affidavit did not establish that defendant was not entitled to the immunity defense under § 4 of the MMMA.9 8 People

Willett v. Waterford Charter Township

271 Mich. App. 38 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2006

cannot establish the essential element of a ‘defect’ and thus Defendant is entitled to governmental immunity. … Plaintiff, relying on MCL 691.1417(2), specifically argues that defendant is not immune because the required elements to avoid immunity have been established, i.e., that the sewage backup was an event under the statutory

Truel v. City of Dearborn

291 Mich. App. 125 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2010

The delineated items in § 8 were clearly not intended to be an all-encompassing expression of the elements of an investigation that are considered confidential. … Because the privilege is qualified rather than absolute, it can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need. Ostoin, 189 Mich App at 338 .

Weaver v. City of Detroit

252 Mich. App. 239 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2002

Testimony presented at trial established that the rusty light pole, erected in 1970 and last inspected in 1979, was placed eighteen inches from the highway’s curb, which was in accordance with industry standards, and was … Consistent with this basic principle, “[n]o action may be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of [MCL 691.1402(1)].” Weakley, supra at 326 .

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Biddis

107 Mich. App. 173 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1981

Finally, the Court noted that a third incentive resulted from the fact that an uninsured motorist who was also established to be a tortfeasor with regard to an accident does not enjoy the same degree of immunity under § 3135 … While an uninsured motorist remains liable to injured parties if fault is established, § 3177 imposes a more limited liability without regard to fault. Section 3177 clearly makes no mention of fault.

Curtis v. City of Flint

253 Mich. App. 555 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2003

The Legislature’s use of the definite article “the” clearly evinces an intent to focus on one cause. … and the . . . governmental *567 immunity act to mean.

Chapin v. Coloma Township

163 Mich. App. 614 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1987

If governmental immunity is at issue, as in the instant case, the plaintiff must plead facts in avoidance of the bar of immunity. … In order to establish nuisance in fact, it is necessary to show that the defendant is responsible for a "dangerous, offensive, or hazardous” condition.