Case law

Marketos v. American Employers Insurance

185 Mich. App. 179 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1990

The petitioners in Branzburg had requested the establishment of the same "qualified” privilege for confidential sources sought in the instant appeal by Booth for nonconfidential materials. … The Court has emphasized *187 that "[t]he publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws.”

Arthur Duckett v. Mary C Solky

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2022

The psychological reevaluation is performed to determine whether the individual continues to qualify as a person requiring treatment. Id. … The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity, or unless Congress has exercised its power to override that immunity. Will, 491 US at 66.

Smith v. Jones

246 Mich. App. 270 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2001

This doctrine is a doctrine of tort law, not governmental immunity; the public-duty doctrine determines whether a duty in tort exists, not whether an individual is immune from an otherwise existing tort duty. … The Legislature’s use of the definite article “the” clearly evinces an intent to focus on one cause.

People v. Minor

213 Mich. App. 682 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1995

While the defendant normally bears the burden of establishing error requiring reversal, People v Rowell, 14 Mich App 190, 196 ; 165 NW2d 423 (1968), where the error is of constitutional dimension, the burden of demonstrating … While clearly there are circumstances in which an error, such as that which occurred here, would *689 require reversal, People v Mobley, 390 Mich 57, 65 ; 210 NW2d 327 (1973), we do not believe that such a remedy is warranted

Ewing v. City of Detroit

252 Mich. App. 149 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2002

Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-107 , 92 S.Ct. 349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), recognized an additional threshold question whether the decision clearly established a new principle of law. Riley v. … resolution was not clearly fore-shadowed....

Phillip G Bazzo v. Attorney Grievance Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2024

fall within absolute immunity,” plaintiff “did not allege that the individual defendants violated any clearly established constitutional right,” and none of the defendants—the AGC as an arm of the state, and the individual … Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity as long as their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Glaubius v. Glaubius

306 Mich. App. 157 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2014

establishing his paternity. … Through the enactment of methods for setting aside judicial determinations of paternity and other established classifications of paternity, the Legislature clearly evidenced an intent to allow relitigation or reconsideration

Garcia v. City of Jackson

174 Mich. App. 373 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1989

prior precedent concerning the intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity so as to establish any new binding precedent for future cases. … Plaintiffs in the instant case have clearly failed to plead trespass-nuisance.

People v. Stubl

149 Mich. App. 42 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1986

Furthermore, our review of the record indicates that the facts proven by the hearsay testimony were clearly established by other competent evidence. … As noted above, the facts proven by the hearsay testimony were clearly established by other competent evidence.

Gay v. Select Specialty Hospital

295 Mich. App. 284 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2012

Because Boggs was qualified to testify about the standard of care, the trial court further erred when it dismissed Gay’s claim on the ground that Gay did not have an expert to establish the standard of care for her malpractice … Finally, the hospital maintained that the trial court had to dismiss Gay’s suit because Gay would not be able to establish this element of her claim.

LaMeau v. City of Royal Oak

289 Mich. App. 153 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2010

In this motion, Royal Oak and its employees argued that LaMeau had failed to establish that the sidewalk itself caused Crnkovich’s injuries. … GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY A.

Kline v. Department of Transportation

291 Mich. App. 651 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2011

Justice CORRIGAN also noted that the statute clearly provides that no claim may be maintained unless the notice is filed with the Court of Claims, which did not happen. Id. … In May , this Court held that a plaintiffs claims are not barred by failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(3) unless the defendant established that it was prejudiced by the noncompliance.

Alar v. Mercy Memorial Hospital

208 Mich. App. 518 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1995

That review was performed according to Department of Defense policy by an established board that regularly conducts such reviews. … Defendant doctor contends, alternatively, that she is entitled to such immunity. We are not deciding that contention, however, because we need not decide it in light of our decision regarding proximate cause.

Borsuk v. Wheeler

133 Mich. App. 403 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1984

It also clearly alleges a conspiracy between Wheeler and the employees of Advance. 1 It is an established rule of law that the act of any one conspirator is legally the act of the other, in that a conspirator is liable for … The only way this could be achieved was for Wheeler to qualify for a mortgage.

Midwest Power Line Inc v. Department of Treasury

324 Mich. App. 444 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 22, 2018

property affixed to or to be affixed to and directly used in the operation of either a qualified truck or a trailer designed to be drawn behind a qualified truck. … The fact that petitioner haul’s customers’ property across state lines is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that it is an “interstate fleet motor carrier.”

Duskin v. Department of Human Services

284 Mich. App. 400 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2009

Alternatively, plaintiffs could have shown that the class representatives were denied promotional opportunities for which they were qualified under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, and then “establish … Clearly, the proofs and law necessary to establish that the DHS discriminated against an Hispanic male candidate in favor of an African-American female candidate would differ from those necessary to show that the DHS discriminated

Smith v. Kowalski

223 Mich. App. 610 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1997

This Court reviews the trial court’s decision on a motion brought under this rule de novo to determine if the claim is so clearly unenforceable *613 as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim … Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(7) for a claim that is barred because of immunity granted by law.

Detroit City Council v. Mayor of Detroit

283 Mich. App. 442 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2009

Such an authority could be established in any area that meets the definition of a “qualified metropolitan area.” 5 The act created the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority (the Authority) as of January 20, 2009, … It is a well-established rule of statutory construction “that courts should avoid any construction that would render statutory language nugatory.”

Regents of University v. State

166 Mich. App. 314 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1988

We are persuaded that, in contrast to the cases on which the circuit court relied, the controversy in this case does not revolve around a public policy clearly established in Michigan. … All agree that the clearly established public policy of our state strictly prohibits racial and religious discrimination in the exercise of civil rights.

Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Department of State

169 Mich. App. 587 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1988

Defendant neglects to point out, however, that where a plaintiff specifically pleads and establishes a nontort cause of action, governmental immunity will not bar recovery simply because the underlying facts also could have … established a tort cause of action.