Case law

Williams v. State of Michigan

144 Mich. App. 438 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1985

First, they contend that summary judgment was improperly granted defendants on the basis of governmental immunity because plaintiffs pled facts in avoidance of immunity by alleging that defendants had committed the intentional … Summary judgment was properly granted in this case, as defendants’ activities concerning child abuse and neglect are clearly a governmental function to which immunity applies. 1 Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to plead sufficient

Dockweiler v. Wentzell

169 Mich. App. 368 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1988

Unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recover, the motion under this subrule should be denied. … and §722 is not an exception to such immunity.

Estate of Shirley Jokinen v. Beaumont Hospital Troy

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2025

-4-  or by what cause those injuries are sustained, unless it is established that such injury or death was caused by the gross negligence, as defined in … The alleged acts, omissions, and injuries were wholly unrelated to the pandemic, so deeming defendant immune would contravene the Legislature’s clearly-communicated intent to limit this immunization to services

Butler v. City of Detroit

149 Mich. App. 708 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1986

However, plaintiffs complaint clearly asserted that at the time of the shooting Officer Ford was acting within the scope of his employment as a *715 police officer. … Applying the "shocks the conscience test” as described in Wilson v Beebe, supra, to the facts and evidence presented in this case, we find that the plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action under 42 USC 1983.

Katrina White v. Domenico Pace

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2025

The record does not clearly show where plaintiff went while Johnson conducted her business, but at some point Johnson called to say she was finished and ready to be picked up. … Under the governmental immunity act, “a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function,” except as otherwise provided.

Harris v. Vernier

242 Mich. App. 306 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2000

We do not find the loose references within those cases to the terms “affirmative defense” and “immunity” controlling of the present issue. … In fact, the Supreme Court qualified its holding in Great American, supra, to exclude such circumstances, stating, “An employee’s common-law right to proceed in tort against persons other than his employer or co-workers was

Kethman v. Oceola Township

88 Mich. App. 94 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 1979

The plaintiffs complaint and proofs do not support such an award, and the doctrine of governmental immunity is clearly applicable under Galli, supra. … In pertinent part that panel stated: "Our examination of the law in this case has failed to reveal any authority whatsoever that would establish that this permit is a contract.

Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor

308 Mich. App. 318 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

Motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) are granted when a claim is barred by “immunity granted by law.” … See MCL 101.1 (“The council of any city may establish, construct and maintain sewers and drains . . .”) (emphasis added); Ashley v Port Huron, 35 Mich 296, 299 (1877) (COOLEY, C.J.)

Hutchinson v. Allegan County Board of Road Commissioners

192 Mich. App. 472 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1992

The motion can be granted only if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery. … The highway exception is a narrowly drawn exception to a broad grant of immunity. Scheurman, supra, p 630 .

Markis v. City of Grosse Pointe Park

180 Mich. App. 545 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1989

The motion should be denied unless the claim is clearly so unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery. … We believe Officer Konefeke is entitled to immunity under Ross.

Vandonkelaar v. Kid's Kourt, LLC

290 Mich. App. 187 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2010

See also Spikes v Banks, 231 Mich App 341, 348 ; 586 NW2d 106 (1998). 4 Even though there was agreement that Chad’s parents were protected by immunity, the parties vigorously disagreed about the effect of that immunity on … Here, the inaction at issue reasonably fell within one of the Plumley exceptions because Chad’s parents were clearly exercising their discretion with respect to the provision of medical services and care.

Nolan v. Bronson

185 Mich. App. 163 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1990

As previously noted, a duty of care may be established by statute, or by the common law. … A bus which is operated in the manner required by § 682 is clearly employed in a specific function or to produce a desired effect.

Detroit Mayor v. Arms Tech, Inc.

258 Mich. App. 48 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2003

Although subsections 9 through 13 provide immunity from civil liability in certain instances, this immunity extends to situations discussed in the act, namely providing trigger locks and firearm safety information. … NOTES [1] A "straw" purchase, according to plaintiffs, is one where a "[qualified] purchaser buys the gun from a licensed dealer for a person who is not qualified to purchase the firearm under federal and state regulations

Robards v. Estate of Kantzler

98 Mich. App. 414 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1980

The record clearly establishes that plaintiffs employer was International Mill & Timber Co. The corporation was a distinct legal entity from Leopold Kantzler as an individual. … Only where fraud, sham or other improper use of the corporate form is established will the corporate entity be disregarded.

Anderson v. Brown Brothers, Inc.

65 Mich. App. 409 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1975

From my review of the record, however, I cannot say that the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly erroneous. … I also agree with both my colleagues that the finding of the trial judge that neither gross negligence nor wilful and wanton misconduct, pleaded in count two, was established was not clearly erroneous and is not to be disturbed

Dana Mark Gamarra v. Oakland County

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2026

” -2-  Defendants moved for summary disposition, claiming entitlement to governmental immunity on grounds that plaintiff could not establish negligence or gross … But there are exceptions to this immunity; two kinds are at issue in this case.

McCALLISTER v. SUN VALLEY POOLS, INC

100 Mich. App. 131 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1980

Unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recover, a motion made under this subrule should be denied. … immunity in this instance.

Thomas v. Consumers Power Co.

58 Mich. App. 486 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1975

By this argument the plaintiffs attempt to convert the consideration clause which actually establishes their own cause of action into a proviso clause against Consumers’ immunity under the statute. … It would seem that Taylor is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.

Gillam v. Lloyd

172 Mich. App. 563 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1988

If the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes a prima facie case against Nostrand and avoided governmental immunity, then a directed verdict *576 was improperly granted. … In Willoughby v Lehrbass, 150 Mich App 319, 348 ; 388 NW2d 688 (1986), this Court stated that in order to establish bad faith under Ross , it would seem that based upon the policy of the qualified *578 immunity doctrine a

Broc Rittenhouse v. Derek Dixon

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2024

immunity under federal law which has a different legal framework than qualified immunity under our state law. … Under federal law, qualified immunity is not available if a clearly established constitutional right is violated. Id. at 422.