Case law

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.

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.

Taylor v. Lenawee County Board of County Road Commissioners

216 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1996

The narrowly drawn highway exception to governmental immunity contained in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102) must be strictly construed, and no action may be maintained under the exception unless it clearly falls within the scope … We find no such duty or exception to governmental immunity.

Davis v. Lhim

147 Mich. App. 8 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1985

The Court also pointed out that establishing a school’s policy as to safety precautions is a discretionary-decisional act. … The Supreme Court’s carefully drafted opinion clearly represents a desire to give vent to both considerations, which are not irreconcilable.

Olepa v. Mapletoff

2 Mich. App. 734 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1966

that: s “Whenever it shall appear to a judge of any court of record, justice of the peace, or a police justice of any city or county where such person may be, upon evidence produced and from a certificate of 2' legally qualified … This theory of immunity from liability for action taken in regards to CLS 1961, § 330.19 (Stat Arm 1956 Bev § 14.809) is substantiated in Kenney v.

Jessica Flamont v. Department of Corrections

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 2024

Whether governmental immunity applies is reviewed de novo as a question of law. Ray, 501 Mich at 61. … Our Supreme Court has stated the test in Michigan for resolving the question of a judicial decision’s retroactivity as follows: [T]here is a “threshold question whether the decision clearly establishe[s] a new

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.

Brown v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners

222 Mich. App. 363 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1997

In light of the test currently applied to establish the public building exception and the impact of Ross on governmental immunity cases, we find that the decisions in Green *368 are not controlling here and that the trial … an exception to governmental immunity.

Snead v. John Carlo, Inc.

294 Mich. App. 343 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2011

MDOT maintained that the construction activities clearly and undeniably entailed the exercise and discharge of a governmental function; therefore, it was immune from tort liability under the governmental tort liability act … “[T]ort actions against governmental agencies generally raise two separate issues: 1) whether the plaintiff has pleaded a cause of action in avoidance of governmental immunity, and 2) whether the plaintiff can establish the

Institute in Basic Life Principles, Inc. v. Watersmeet Township

217 Mich. App. 7 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1996

Nonetheless, where the agency’s interpretation is clearly wrong, the longstanding interpretation of a statute by the agency that administers it does not control. Id. … The corporations referred to in this section as Sunday schools or special religious societies, shall have all the rights, privileges, immunities and powers granted by this act to non-profit corporations generally in their

Tellin v. Forsyth Township

291 Mich. App. 692 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2011

This sentence unequivocally establishes the duty of a governmental agency to “repair and maintain” public buildings. … Where the government has created rules that render the building closed except to those who are qualified to enter, the building is not open for use by members of the public.

Vitale v. Reddy

150 Mich. App. 492 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1986

Reddy should have recognized Michael’s serious condition earlier than she did and should have ordered him to be transferred sooner to a qualified hospital for prompt diagnosis and treatment. … The state is therefore protected by governmental immunity. As to Dr.

Gray v. Chrostowski

298 Mich. App. 769 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2012

This language clearly limits the scope of subsection (2) to threshold claims arising under subsection (1). … As noted by our Supreme Court: “The Legislature, in speaking so clearly in § 3135(3), made unmistakable its intent to define where immunity was lost.

People v. Hawkins

157 Mich. App. 767 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 18, 1987

MCL 552.9; MSA 25.89 establishes a residency requirement for the filing of a divorce complaint: *770 Both the 10-day and the 180-day residency requirements are jurisdictional. … Rather, the statute ends immunity as soon as the complaint is filed. 2 Similarly, if this was a notice requirement, the *773 Legislature could have established some provision for those cases in which the statutory residency

People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Gene Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 2015

Thus, § 4 immunity is not extended to “a registered qualifying patient who transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use . . . .” Id. … Additionally, a primary caregiver asserting § 4 immunity must be “connected” to his or her patients through the state’s registration process in order to qualify for § 4 immunity. Id.

Weakley v. City of Dearborn Heights

246 Mich. App. 322 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2001

The immunity conferred on governmental agencies is broad. Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 455 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). … No action may be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute. Scheurman v Dep’t of Transportation, 434 Mich 619, 630 ; 456 NW2d 66 (1990).

Bokano v. Wayne-Westland Community Schools

114 Mich. App. 79 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1982

Turning to the question of public versus private fiscal involvement in the public schools, it should be noted that the Michigan Constitution mandates establishment of "a system of free public elementary and secondary schools … The fiscal involvement factor clearly indicates that public schools are a governmental function.

Richardson v. Warren Consolidated School District

197 Mich. App. 697 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1992

"No action may be maintained under the highway exception unless it is clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute.” … This Court has not extended municipal liability beyond that "clearly within the scope and meaning of the statute.” Scheurman, supra at 630 .

Paige v. Bing Construction Co.

61 Mich. App. 480 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 30, 1975

The decision, however, established exceptions to the principle: "A child may maintain a lawsuit against his parent for injuries suffered as a result of the alleged ordinary negligence of the parent. … "The test which the court should apply in considering motions under GCR 1963, 117.2(1) is whether plaintiff’s claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly

Carney v. Department of Transportation

145 Mich. App. 690 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1985

These findings are not clearly erroneous. Finally, plaintiff seeks to revive her intentional nuisance claim. … We conclude that the findings of fact by the trial court are not clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C).