Case law

Nevin Cooper-Keel v. Robert J Baker

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 13, 2025

Plaintiff then, promptly, sought unemployment benefits, which he ultimately received after 1 While not stated in the complaint or clearly explained elsewhere in this case, it is implied that defendant Baker is, perhaps … -2- defendants were entitled to summary disposition of the IIED and injurious-falsehood claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8) because plaintiff failed to establish that “he does

Tachelle Landin v. Department of Health and Human Services

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2024

Id. at 565.5 As part of the retroactivity analysis, a threshold question is whether the judicial decision clearly established a new principle of law. Id. … , set by the Legislature for one of the exceptions to governmental immunity.

City of Highland Park v. State Land Bank Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2022

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND STATUTES As explained by our Supreme Court, The rules of statutory construction are well established. … If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.

Ross v. Consumers Power Co.

93 Mich. App. 687 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1979

We are not unmindful of the fact that the Legislature has provided for the establishment and operation of. drainage districts, see MCL 280.51 et seq.; MSA 11.1051 et seq., nor *698 are we unaware of the fact that a drainage … It is in this area that the interests of the individual most clearly outweigh the need to protect government from liability, and accordingly, when its activities fall into this category, we should not hesitate to hold government

Freedman v. City of Oak Park

170 Mich. App. 349 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1988

Moreover, the roof of the park bench shelter was clearly not designed for being climbed upon, as Moshe Freedman was allegedly doing in this case. … Defendant, on the other hand, argues that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish an intentional nuisance claim.

Ridley v. City of Detroit

258 Mich. App. 511 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2003

We are asked to determine whether plaintiff pleaded in avoidance of governmental immunity. … We find it imperative that the Legislature make itself heard, clearly and unequivocally, with respect to whether the highway exception should apply to traffic signals, signs, and lighting.

Payton v. City of Detroit

211 Mich. App. 375 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1995

Conversely, the governmental immunity statute, MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), is specific in granting immunity, to governmental agencies. … Accordingly, probable cause was established and barred plaintiffs right to recover. Koski, supra; Modla v Miller, 344 Mich 21, 22 ; 73 NW2d 220 (1955).

Tobias v. Phelps

144 Mich. App. 272 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1985

This claim is not so clearly unenforceable that no factual development could support a judgment for plaintiff. Negligence The trial court held that plaintiff failed to plead facts in avoidance of governmental immunity. … These allegations establish that de *280 fendants were acting during the course of their employment and acting, or reasonably believed they were acting, within the scope of their authority.

Brian Zezula v. Nina Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2025

“A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possible justify recovery.” Id. … “To successfully bring an action, a plaintiff cannot merely satisfy subsection 2 but must, instead, establish all the requirements of subsection 3.” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 282; 745 NW2d 513 (2007).

Manzo v. Petrella & Petrella & Associates, PC

261 Mich. App. 705 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 4, 2004

Michigan requires all hospitals, even private entities like HFHS to establish peer review committees. … There are repeated references 1 in the text to assisting “the department,” which clearly reference a public entity, a governmental department or agency.

Michael Crispin v. Barton Malow Builders LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2024

Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. … Section 611 requires that any employer subject to the WDCA secure payment of the required compensation by either obtaining authorization to act as a self-insurer or by purchasing a qualifying insurance policy.

City of Highland Park v. State Land Bank Authority

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2022

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND STATUTES As explained by our Supreme Court, The rules of statutory construction are well established. … If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written.

Dustin Rowland v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2025

Plaintiff herein has sufficiently established the existence of a factual dispute. Plaintiff has sufficiently established a prima facia [sic] case of ordinary negligence. … But that immunity applies only “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this act.” Id.

May v. WOLVERINE TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT CO.

107 Mich. App. 163 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1981

Here, the Legislature has established three statutory exceptions to the general grant of immunity, imposing liability in cases involving defective highways, negligently operated government vehicles and dangerous or defective … The company’s claim for *172 indemnification is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.

American Alternative Insurance Company, Inc v. York

252 Mich. App. 76 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2002

, amounted to intentional conduct for purposes of the intentional harm exception to immunity from tort liability provided in subsection 3135(3)(a). … A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id.

ATTORNEY GENERAL Ex Rel NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION v. BALKEMA

191 Mich. App. 201 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1991

of dnr officers also established the presence of a definite bank. … Moreover, we note the applicability of governmental immunity. The dnr is immune from liability in tort while it is engaged in the exercise of a governmental function, 1964 PA 170 , MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).

People v. Glover

47 Mich. App. 454 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 24, 1973

He testified that he had perpetrated the robbery, he and the defendant had planned and discussed the crime, the defendant *456 selected the business establishment to be robbed, the defendant gave him a gun to use while en … The law at the time of defendant’s trial clearly permitted the use of a juvenile record for the impeachment of a witness who, as here, was not himself a defendant.

Duncan v. State

284 Mich. App. 246 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2009

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Defendants argue that governmental immunity bars plaintiffs’ “tort” claims against the state because they do not come within an exception to the broad grant of immunity afforded by MCL 691.1407(1). … Our Supreme Court has “observed that nontort causes of action are not barred by immunity if a plaintiff successfully pleads and establishes such a cause of action.”

Burger v. Midland Cogeneration Venture

202 Mich. App. 310 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 1993

granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), determining that defendants were statutory employers under the wdca and were entitled to its exclusive remedy provisions, thereby providing immunity … The motion should be granted only if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could justify recovery. Id., 450-451 .

Rathbun v. Starr Commonwealth for Boys

145 Mich. App. 303 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1985

Unless a claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possible justify a right to recover, a motion under this subrule should be denied. … The failure to follow established procedures in supervising employees is a ministerial act. Bandfield v Wood, 421 Mich 774 ; 364 NW2d 280 (1985).