Case law

People v. Reed

294 Mich. App. 78 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2011

The Court, in making this statement, was clearly focusing on a defendant’s purportedly illegal conduct, not on the defendant’s arrest. We note that statutes should be construed so as to avoid absurd results. … for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

Hojeije v. Department of Treasury

263 Mich. App. 295 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2004

In Saucier, supra at 201-202, the United States Supreme Court described the following standards for applying the protection of qualified immunity: A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity-issue must consider . … Stated slightly differently, the plaintiff attempting to overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 action bears the burden of establishing that a “reasonable official in the defendant[’s] position could [not] have believed

People v. Butler-Jackson

307 Mich. App. 667 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2014

MCL 333.26424(f) and was entitled to immunity. … Rather, MCL 333.26424(f) grants immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty to physicians who meet the delineated requirements, just as Subsections (a) and (b) of the statute grant broad immunity to qualifying patients

Willoughby v. Lehrbass

150 Mich. App. 319 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1986

We find this argument clearly lacking in merit. … However, in order to establish bad faith under Ross, it would seem that based upon the policy of the qualified immunity doctrine a plaintiff would have to establish that the governmental actor engaged in malicious or intentionally

People v. Vansickle

303 Mich. App. 111 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2013

In defense of the charge, defendant alleged that he was entitled to immunity as set forth in § 4 of the MMMA. … However, there is no provision in the MMMA that expressly grants “a qualifying patient” the right to sell marijuana to another allegedly “qualifying patient.”

Martin v. Children's Aid Society

215 Mich. App. 88 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1996

Plaintiffs now appeal as of right, and the cas defendants cross appeal. *94 I The dss defendants were protected from liability unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of plaintiffs … Judge Stephens has ruled that Cross-Appellants have qualified immunity, but that has not prevented years of litigation.

Progress Michigan v. Attorney General

324 Mich. App. 659 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2018

] -4-  It is a clearly established principle that “when the Legislature specifically qualifies the ability to bring a claim against the state or its subdivisions … Even “ ‘post-Court of Claims Act’ legislation waiving suit immunity . . . is limited by the terms and conditions of jurisdiction established in the Court of Claims Act.”

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Corby Energy Services, Inc.

271 Mich. App. 480 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2006

This section clearly does not impose liability on public utilities for a failure to give proper notice under MCL 460.708. … Unlike EMSA, the MISS-DIG act does not establish standards of immunity. Rather, it imposes notification requirements on persons, public agencies, and public utilities.

Zachary Alan Varela v. Brad Spanski

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2019

Under this framework, the first query mandates consideration of the elements necessary to establish immunity under the MMMA. … If the qualifying patient [alleges sufficient facts of] the first and second elements, then a presumption exists that the qualifying patient was engaged in the medical use of marijuana, thereby establishing

Petersen Financial LLC v. City of Kentwood

326 Mich. App. 433 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 2018

A contract cannot establish or alter jurisdiction. … This is clearly within the scope of the circuit court's jurisdiction.

Dampier v. Wayne County

233 Mich. App. 714 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 1999

Thus, in light of Swickard , we hold that the morgue fails to qualify as a hospital for purposes of the public hospital exception to governmental immunity. … We hold, therefore, that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in William Dampier’s body were not clearly established at the time of Wayne County’s alleged negligent acts.

Regualos v. Community Hospital

140 Mich. App. 455 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1985

II Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in *462 finding that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to MCL 331.531; MSA 14.57(21). 1 That statute grants a qualified immunity to persons engaged … Accordingly, we also reject plaintiffs contention that the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous.

Pierce v. City of Lansing

265 Mich. App. 174 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2005

immunity, MCL 691.1406. … Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in finding that the parking structure where plaintiff was injured qualifies as a public building. Governmental immunity is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.

People v. Bylsma; People v. Overholt

315 Mich. App. 363 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 17, 2016

Most relevant to this appeal, the court concluded that defendant failed to establish that he was entitled to immunity under § 4, and because his entitlement to an affirmative defense under § 8 was dependent on whether he … In particular, § 4 “grants broad immunity from criminal prosecution and civil penalties” to registered “qualifying patient[s]” and “primary caregiver[s]” who can satisfy the elements of that section.

Braska v. Challenge Manufacturing Co.

307 Mich. App. 340 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2014

and supersede contrary laws. 5 As noted, the MMMA’s immunity clause provides in relevant part as follows: A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest … The disqualification clearly amounted to a penalty imposed on claimants for their medical use of marijuana that ran afoul of the MMMA’s immunity clause.

Denishio Johnson v. Curt Vanderkooi

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Further, we review de novo the question of whether a federal constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation so as to preclude the protection of qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY GENERALLY “Qualified immunity is an established federal defense against claims for damages under § 1983 for alleged violations of federal rights.” Id.

McSwain v. Redford Township

173 Mich. App. 492 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1988

This apparently qualified the township to receive federal funds for the sewer system’s construction. Neither party appealed from the order or the injunction and the sewer system has since been constructed. … The septic tanks and septic systems were there in being, and were clearly the obligation of the *496 private landowner to maintain and maintain in a proper condition.

Beattie v. Mickalich

284 Mich. App. 564 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2009

Given these provisions, it is plainly obvious that the EALA does not create blanket immunity. SeeAmburgey, supra at 233 (construing § 5 as granting “immunity” to qualifying defendants). … As already noted, § 5 delineates a list of exceptions to the qualified immunity granted to certain defendants under § 3.

Tocco v. Piersante

69 Mich. App. 616 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1976

, 16 and that, 'The position of the Michigan Supreme Court is very hard to determine’. 17 "In Michigan, is official immunity absolute or qualified? … because the plaintiff had failed to establish malice so as to overcome even a qualified privilege.

Denishio Johnson v. Curt Vanderkooi

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 23, 2017

Further, we review de novo the question of whether a federal constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation so as to preclude the protection of qualified immunity. … QUALIFIED IMMUNITY GENERALLY “Qualified immunity is an established federal defense against claims for damages under § 1983 for alleged violations of federal rights.” Id.