Case law

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.

McCracken v. Redford Township

176 Mich. App. 365 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1989

The panel analyzed each of the opinions of the concurring justices and concluded: While the three-justice plurality led by Justice Brickley clearly holds that there is no intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity … Nevertheless, this does not establish the requisite intent.

Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, Inc.

82 Mich. App. 153 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1978

The first expression of the qualified privilege doctrine appears in Bacon v Michigan Central R Co, 66 Mich 166, 170 ; 33 NW 181 (1887): "Qualified privilege exists in a much larger number of cases. … -it the other extreme are those occasions wherein the social interest involved in publication is so great as . to immunize even deliberately malicious attacks upon one’s character.

Diamond v. Witherspoon

265 Mich. App. 673 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 26, 2005

GOVERNMENTAL TORT LIABILITY ACT Defendant argues that it is immune from any liability because no exception applies to the immunity granted *691 to it under the GTLA. … This argument is misplaced inasmuch as plaintiffs brought suit against defendant under the CRA, not under an exception to governmental immunity. Governmental immunity is not a defense to a claim brought under the CRA.

Burrill v. Michigan

90 Mich. App. 408 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 1979

The defendant clearly had no owner’s or lessee’s interest and thus no control of the premises. … GCR 1963, 116.4 requires the affidavits be made on personal knowledge and set forth with particularity such facts as would be admissible as evidence to establish or deny the grounds set forth.

Malcolm v. City of East Detroit

180 Mich. App. 633 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1989

Since no contrary definition or intent is clearly manifested in §20737, "[a]ll persons” must, by express statutory definition and construction, include governmental units. … The city also argues that, even should the ems statute provide an exception to governmental immunity, the evidence was insufficient to establish wilful or wanton misconduct on the part of the city or that its conduct was

Petipren v. Jaskowski

294 Mich. App. 419 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2011

Those cases have concluded that acts such as commenting on an official governmental matter and making personnel or employment decisions clearly fall within the scope of the executive authority of the highest executive officials … Indeed, the essential duties of the police chief as set forth in the job description for the police chief of the village of Port Sanilac are administrative in nature and are clearly distinct from the nature of the duties

Grostick v. Ellsworth

158 Mich. App. 18 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1987

malice to overcome the qualified privilege. … "Generally speaking, absolute privilege is confined to cases in which the public service or the administration of justice requires complete immunity from being called to account for language used.

Brown v. Northville Regional Psychiatric Hospital

153 Mich. App. 300 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 1986

The motion is tested by the pleadings alone and may not be granted unless a claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recover. … Also, if a clearly established rule or standard exists requiring that the discharge of a patient in the circumstances of the decedent Brown be accompanied by medication and if through oversight, inattention or other negligence

Dagen v. Village of Baldwin

159 Mich. App. 620 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1987

A governmental agency does not have immunity from actions arising out of contracts to which it is a party: In Ross , the Supreme Court held that "[i]f a plaintiff successfully pleads and establishes a non-tort cause of action … , [MCL 691.1507; MSA 3.996(107)] will not bar recovery simply because the underlying facts could have also established a *628 tort cause of action.”

Sellers v. Hauch

183 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1990

However, these two cases are clearly distinguishable from Gallegos in that they involve the overruling of established common-law doctrines rather than the constitutional declaration with respect to the validity of a statute … Therefore, the parties on remand are free to relitigate any question of whether plaintiffs qualify for benefits under § 115, as it now stands in the aftermath of East-way. 8 *17 II.

Endykiewicz v. State Highway Commission

102 Mich. App. 662 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 1981

While common law governmental immunity has since been abolished, Pittman v City of Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976), the general rule of governmental immunity remains established by statute. … In Pagano , it was argued that the statute waived immunity for damages "suffered by him” but did not waive immunity for third party claimants when the injured person died.

Davis v. City of Detroit

149 Mich. App. 249 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1986

If the defendant thought that this allegation in the complaint was insufficient to establish an exception to governmental immunity, the issue should have been raised prior to trial in a motion for summary disposition. … The record clearly reveals that when the plaintiff entered into areas that the trial court felt were inappropriate, plaintiff was prevented from making further inquiry.

Rushing v. Wayne County

138 Mich. App. 121 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1984

Even though plaintiffs rights were violated, the court denied plaintiffs claim for damages: "As prison officials, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the damage claim. … However, 'the immunity defense would be unavailing * * * if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have known of that right

Williams v. Primary School District 3

3 Mich. App. 468 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1966

It clearly distinguishes sovereign immunity, which may be claimed only by the State government: i.e., the State and its agencies. … Further, the Myers Case, supra, establishes the rule that subdivisions of governmental and municipal corporations are not shielded from tort liability by any governmental immunity.

Carey v. Meijer, Inc

160 Mich. App. 461 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1987

immunity in this instance. … The facts pled in the third-party complaint clearly state a claim for negligence.

Fulton v. Pontiac General Hospital

160 Mich. App. 728 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1987

The Court: Did you file any kind of affidavit or document to establish that were [sic] was an implied contract? Ms. Weisberg: I don’t believe there have been any affidavits filed at this time. … Indeed, under that subrule, plaintiff’s allegations are accepted as true, as are any conclusions that may reasonably be drawn therefrom, and the motion must be denied unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter

Tim Edward Brugger II v. Midland County Bd of Road Commissioners

324 Mich. App. 307 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 15, 2018

established a new principle of law. … establish a new principle of law in 2016; the only new principles of law were established by Rowland in 2007, and Streng simply resolved the ensuing conflict between two statutes—MCL 224.21 and the GTLA notice provision—in

Lawrence v. Department of Corrections

88 Mich. App. 167 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 1979

There is no such requirement under current prison disciplinary rules. 2 Recently the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections was immune from local zoning ordinances. … The charging officer is clearly in an adversary position vis-a-vis the prisoner. In addition, the administrative structure of the prison system fits the agency model contemplated in the APA.

Roby v. City of Mount Clemens

274 Mich. App. 26 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2007

over a highway to “ ‘maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.’ ” 11 The highway exception is narrowly construed, and an action under this exception must be “clearly … The evidence presented established that the area in question was not intended for pedestrian travel and, therefore, was not a sidewalk for purposes of the highway exception.