Case law

Montgomery v. City of Detroit

181 Mich. App. 298 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1989

Clearly, Walls’ determination of the seriousness of Robnett’s condition and his decision to call ems were discretionary functions. … The language used in. subsection (1) clearly provides that the amended MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107) does not apply to causes of action arising prior to July 1, 1986.

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.

People v. Safiedine

163 Mich. App. 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1987

1985), lv den 424 Mich 878 (1986), this Court held that, where a defendant had not been subpoenaed, never refused to testify, and never invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, he was not entitled to transactional immunity … It was not necessary that the actual preparer of the business records be present to lay the foundation for the admission of the documents as the testimony of other "qualified” witnesses was sufficient.

Ray v. Department of Social Services

156 Mich. App. 55 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1986

Whether the trial court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. i Do the facts in this case fall within the general rule of governmental immunity or does the building exception provision, MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106), … Underhill to testify as her testimony clearly proved prior notice by her and through her to her superiors of the dangerous and unsafe conditions.

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).

Iovino v. State

228 Mich. App. 125 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1998

Plaintiff has presented evidence to establish that the traffic signals at the intersection of Dixie Highway and Watkins Lake Road may not have been properly positioned or programmed to ameliorate the hazard of an oncoming … Clearly, then, the mdot actually exercised control over the area in question and must be perceived to have jurisdiction over this spot pursuant to the conception of jurisdiction as used in the statute.

Adams v. Department of Transportation

251 Mich. App. 801 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2002

Recently, our Supreme Court acknowledged that when determining whether a decision should not have retroactive application, the threshold question is “whether the decision clearly established a new principle of law.” … Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Nawrocki decision “clearly established a new principle of law.” Pohutski, supra at 696 (emphasis supplied).

People v. Julian

171 Mich. App. 153 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1988

immunity results in the suppression of testimony favorable to the defendant or where the immunity is necessary to obtain exculpatory testimony. 12 In the within case, the failure to grant immunity to Pomerico did not foreclose … This man, the file indicates, that when his father was contacted initially when he came in, his father said that he has a short temper and clearly he has demonstrated that.

People v. Gleason

122 Mich. App. 482 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1983

Paragraph 1 merely establishes the reliability of the affiant. … be insufficient to establish the informant’s credibility.

Jaqua v. Canadian National Railroad

274 Mich. App. 540 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

Although the Court did not explain what will qualify as a “compromis[e] [of] a claimed liability” it did say that parties may settle “[w]here controversies exist as to whether there is liability, and if so for how much.” … The court also discussed the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Babbitt and observed that it “appears to establish a broad, legal rule prohibiting the use of general releases in cases such as this.” Id.

Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder

323 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2018

In this case, unlike in Rusha , application of the harsh-and-unreasonable-consequences exception is clearly supported. … The state and its officials also enjoy broad immunity from liability under state law.

Maki v. City of East Tawas

18 Mich. App. 109 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1970

Garavaglia (1952), 333 Mich 317 , which clearly recognizes three categories of nuisance, the last one based on negligence. At p 331 the Court quoted from Beckwith v. … The rule is contra by the established weight of authority when there is a ‘classic’ or ‘standard’ or ‘absolute’ nuisance involved. See 73 ALR2d 1381.

Rohrabaugh v. Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority Corp.

75 Mich. App. 677 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 1977

Plaintiff, in fact, however, indicated in a deposition that this was the first time she patronized this facility, and that normally her skating was done at a private profit-oriented establishment. *683 A review of Michigan … Such operations are incapable of existing absent the park and the operation of such services are clearly inseparable from the operation of the park.

Stewart v. Troutt

73 Mich. App. 378 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1977

Clearly statements made by a mayor during the exercise of his express power to veto are an essential *389 function of his office. … It is the occasion or circumstance, as well as the office, that calls forth the immunity, not the individual as such.

Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit

266 Mich. App. 318 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 2005

Clearly, whether the Court's decision in Evens would "shift liability" for signage to municipalities was germane to the Court's holding regarding immunity of the state and county road commissions and displayed the "application … devices are not part of "the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel" as delineated in MCL 691.1402(1). [3] MCR 7.215(J)(1) states that [a] panel of the Court of Appeals must follow the rule of law established

National Bank v. Department of Social Services

240 Mich. App. 348 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2000

For purposes of the previous sentence, the term “grantor” means the individual referred to in paragraph (2). (2) For purposes of this subsection, a “medicaid qualifying trust” is a trust, or similar legal device, established … trust is irrevocable or is established for purposes other than to enable a grantor to qualify for medical assistance under this title; or (B) whether or not the discretion described in paragraph (2) is actually exercised

O'TOOLE v. Fortino

97 Mich. App. 797 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 3, 1980

Drescher was granted on the basis of governmental immunity. … Those actions, therefore, are covered by the protective cloak of governmental immunity. Plaintiff failed to plead facts in avoidance of immunity.

Capital Region Airport Authority v. DeWitt Charter Township

236 Mich. App. 576 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1999

.; MSA 28.2271, et seq., the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions. … Clearly, this goal would be thwarted if the agency’s aeronautical activities were subject to local land-use ordinances.

Michonski v. City of Detroit

162 Mich. App. 485 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1987

It is clearly not required that a plaintiffs injuries occur while using the sidewalk. The Davis Court stated that liability for breach of the duty to repair and maintain light poles is not limited to sidewalk travelers. … Here, if plaintiff sufficiently alleged intentional nuisance in fact, and thereby established an exception to governmental immunity, then summary disposition of Count m was improper.