Case law

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.

Allinger v. Kell

102 Mich. App. 798 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1981

The majority appears to read this statute as granting immunity from suit to a medical examiner when engaged in such activity. I do not read the statute as granting such an immunity. … Ayers averred in connection with his motion for summary judgment that he was at all relevant times acting in his *816 capacity as a deputy medical examiner, it was not established that he believed his actions were necessary

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.

Wilson v. Alpena County Road Commission

263 Mich. App. 141 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2004

Where the claim is “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery,” the motion should be granted. Id. at 119 . … Defendant, recognizing that the only solution for the dilapidated road was to completely rebuild it, argued that rebuilding a road was clearly beyond regular maintenance.

Wilkins v. Gagliardi

219 Mich. App. 260 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1996

The separation of powers doctrine is explicitly established in Const 1963, art 3, § 2. … However, the trial court in this case clearly denied the fees on a finding that the offer of judgment was untimely.

Charter Township of York v. Donald Miller

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 2021

The -1- plaintiff, a licensed qualifying patient and a registered primary caregiver, began growing marijuana on rented commercially zoned property because she did not want … Because the zoning ordinance does not prohibit or penalize all medical marijuana cultivation, the “immunity language” in the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a) and (b), cannot serve as the source of any conflict.

Iovino v. STATE, DOT

577 N.W.2d 193 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 5, 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.

Schulz v. Northville Public Schools

247 Mich. App. 178 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 2001

In fact, we fall to see how the Legislature’s intent could have been more clearly expressed. … However, our Supreme Court has established the test to be applied in Michigan: appellate courts must attempt to discern the Legislature’s intent by examining the statutory language at issue.

People v. Wood

276 Mich. App. 669 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2007

Clearly it did. The only causation required by the statutory language is factual causation, not proximate causation. … Thus, as the trial court held, the only causation element the prosecution had to establish in this case was factual causation.

Hill v. Houghton Township

109 Mich. App. 614 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1981

reviewing a grant of summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(1), this Court assumes that the factual allegations in a plaintiffs complaint are true and, then, determines whether the plaintiffs claim, on the pleadings, is so clearly … In Pastorino v Detroit 3 the Supreme Court noted that the "immunity” of governmental entities from adverse possession claims was first established in this state by 1907 PA 46 .

Fuller v. Department of Transportation

168 Mich. App. 682 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1988

Thomas reveals clearly that Hawkins Road is under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. … The documents presented by plaintiffs fail to establish an issue of fact.

Link v. McCoy

39 Mich. App. 120 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1972

It is clearly established in Michigan that an expert may render an opinion concerning the point of impact based upon debris and skid marks. … In our opinion, the record does not clearly establish that these officers were so qualified. We cannot say that the exercise of the trial court’s discretion was clearly erroneous. II.

House Speaker v. Governor

195 Mich. App. 376 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1992

These plaintiffs clearly have a substantial interest different in kind from the citizenry at large. … THE GOVERNOR IS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT Defendants argue that the Governor is absolutely immune from suit in his exercise of legislative authority.

Wright v. Wright

134 Mich. App. 800 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1984

We don't *805 believe the average layman is qualified to answer a question of law. Furthermore, interrogatory No. 16 was framed as a question of "parental discipline" and not as a question of parental authority. … In this case, the activity clearly constitutes negligent parental supervision.

Troy Gibson v. City of Dearborn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2017

This clearly was not the Legislature’s intent in enacting MCL 691.1405. … Although subsection (2)(c) establishes an exception to the grant of immunity to an officer or employee of a governmental agency, it does not provide that a governmental agency otherwise entitled to immunity can be vicariously

Troy Gibson v. City of Dearborn

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2017

This clearly was not the Legislature’s intent in enacting MCL 691.1405. … Although subsection (2)(c) establishes an exception to the grant of immunity to an officer or employee of a governmental agency, it does not provide that a governmental agency otherwise entitled to immunity can be vicariously

King v. Taylor Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc

184 Mich. App. 204 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1990

provided by the law unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer has specifically consented to it. … provided by law, unless the waiver is clearly stated and the consumer has specifically consented to it.

In Re McDivitt Estate

169 Mich. App. 435 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1988

Clearly, mediation sanctions would not qualify under subsections (b), (c), (d) or (e). … Any other conclusion would frustrate the intent behind the mediation sanctions rule, MCR 2.403(0), by giving estates immunity from the consequences of prosecuting meritless claims.

Chelsea Investment Group LLC v. City of Chelsea

288 Mich. App. 239 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2010

Thus, the court ruled that plaintiffs negligence claim was barred by governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407(2). … Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err and plaintiff is not entitled to damages for Phase Three. B.

Redd v. Carney (In re Redd)

321 Mich. App. 398 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2017

For removal, however, a petitioner must simply establish that removal of a current conservator would be *295 "for good cause." MCL 700.5414. … We conclude that Gary has failed to establish that the current probate judge would be unable to rule fairly on remand.