Case law

Brown v. Genesee County Board of Commissioners

233 Mich. App. 325 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1998

Kerbersky filed suit against the defendant university and others, alleging a negligence or premises liability theory and the application of the public building exception to governmental immunity. Id. … Clearly, through Kerbersky, the Supreme Court has established a new, expanded area of focus in public building exception cases, i.e., the public nature of the building where the accident occurred rather than the public nature

Detroit Edison Co. v. City of Detroit

180 Mich. App. 145 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 6, 1989

Under the governmental immunity analysis employed in tort cases, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability unless the activity engaged in is proprietary in nature or falls within one of the other statutory exceptions … to the governmental immunity act.

Knapp v. City of Dearborn

60 Mich. App. 18 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1975

from suit by reason of governmental immunity. … Thus, if 'governmental function’ is interpreted to include public hospital services, the Legislature may have established a classification which might not pass constitutional muster.

Layton v. Quinn

120 Mich. App. 708 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1982

Out of the four opinions of the seven justices, only Justice Williams clearly abandoned the ministerial-discretionary test. The following month, the Court decided Lockaby, supra. … Established rules of law are not generally abandoned merely by implication. See People v Stoeckl, *721 347 Mich 1, 16 ; 78 NW2d 640 (1956).

Stoick v. Caro Community Hospital

167 Mich. App. 154 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 1988

His decision not to admit the Plaintiff was clearly a discretional act under the circumstances of this case and immune from liability [sic]. … In response, defendant did not argue that the facts pled by plaintiffs were not sufficient to establish bad faith. Dr.

Carlton v. Department of Corrections

215 Mich. App. 490 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1996

However, the only fact that was clearly established by all the testimony was that if the dps building had been up-to-date and had used state-of-the-art technology, [the decedent’s] suicide may have been detected earlier and … Like Hickey, supra, our review of the testimony, as well as the trial court’s findings, indicates that the only fact that was clearly established was that if each cell in unit 2 had been equipped with a smoke detector, the

Belt v. Ritter

18 Mich. App. 495 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1970

Defendants necessarily swore to both of these elements in order to establish a prima facie offense. … their judicial acts, and this_ is well-established in Michigan.

Kevin Rankin v. City of Highland Park

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 2015

Specifically, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … objectively unreasonable action in light of a clearly established constitutional right.

Vermilya v. Dunham

195 Mich. App. 79 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 20, 1992

Generally, once a standard of conduct is established, the reasonableness of an actor’s conduct under the standard is a question for the *83 factfinder, not the court. … A trial court’s finding with regard to whether a claim or defense was frivolous will not be disturbed on appeal unless the finding is clearly erroneous.

Lana Tyrrell v. University of Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2020

In this context, the Fairley Court explained that “while MCL 600.6431 does not confer governmental immunity, it establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental immunity conferred by the GTLA, which expressly … Instead, the Legislature in the PWDCRA waived governmental immunity without establishing any conditions 3 MCL 600.6431 has since been amended by 2020 PA 42, but those amendments did not change the pertinent language of

Board of County Road Commissioners v. Schultz

205 Mich. App. 371 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1994

To hold differently would be to establish a policy that when a party loses on one defense (release) but ultimately is successful on another (governmental immunity), that party is nevertheless obligated to appeal the unfavorable … In fact, the wording of the stipulation clearly reflects that all claims, i.e., more than one claim, against the board were being dismissed.

Sweeney v. Sweeney

71 Mich. App. 428 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1976

involving inter-family litigation, relying on dicta in Abendschein and upon the case of Branyan v Alpena Flying Service, Inc. 65 Mich App 1 ; 236 NW2d 739 (1975). *430 Dictum is not, and should not be considered to be the establishment … Branyan is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In Branyan no question as to the existence of a cause of action was presented.

Cebreco v. Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts, Inc

219 Mich. App. 353 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1996

Plaintiff is clearly handicapped for purposes of the mhcra 2 and established a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the adequacy of the accommodations provided. MCR 2.116(C)(10). … The trial court correctly determined that these facts do not establish gross negligence.

People v. McIntosh

142 Mich. App. 314 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 6, 1985

Prior to trial, the court held an evidentiary hearing to establish the basis of Faulkner’s testimony. … Kelly Faulkner was vigorously cross-examined about the effects of the hypnosis and the tentative nature of her identification of defendant at the lineup was clearly established.

Giannotta v. Governor

71 Mich. App. 15 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1976

We do not believe "justices” of the Supreme Court are immune from the section simply because the term was not used. … To believe otherwise would be injecting a distinction into the voter’s mind which was not clearly present. We decline to do so.

Thornhill v. City of Detroit

142 Mich. App. 656 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1985

Having reviewed the testimony, we find that the expert’s opinion was objectionable because it was based on assumptions that did not accord with the established facts. … We find that statute inapposite as it did not at all address derivative immunity.

Willie L Faison v. City of Highland Park Michigan

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2026

proposition” and that plaintiff had clearly pleaded the essential elements of a promissory-estoppel claim rather than a negligence claim. … We agree with the trial court, however, that defendant cannot avail itself of such immunity here.

McKendrick v. Petrucci

71 Mich. App. 200 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1976

Plaintiff, pointing out that the section sets up two classes, one immune from most tort liability and the other not, claims that he, as a victim of injuries caused by a member of the class granted immunity, is subjected to … Plaintiff, as an automobile accident victim, might find his ability to maintain an action qualified by the immunity granted by the statute.

Central Advertising Co. v. City of Novi

91 Mich. App. 303 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1979

The statute speaks of immunity for "governmental functions,” and this court is of the opinion that while it may be an appropriate goal or objective of government to establish a hospital authority, it does not follow that … However, since Monell expressly avoided the immunity question and we need not address it, we rest our decision on other grounds. 5 While the Supreme Court’s dismissals may or may not conclusively establish that an ordinance

Dinh v. Forest Hills Public Schools

129 Mich. App. 293 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1983

Unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery, the motion should be denied. … While we accept the standard established in McNees and Cobb , we find that those cases should be factually distinguished from the instant case.