Case law

Lawrence v. Ingham County Health Department Family Planning/Pre-Natal Clinic

160 Mich. App. 420 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 19, 1987

Where this occurs, the doctrine of governmental immunity bars only the negligence claim and does not prevent the party from pursuing the breach of contract claim based on the same facts. … In determining whether there is a contract implied in fact, the courts look to the acts and conduct of the parties to determine whether the essential elements of an express contract have been established. 6A Michigan Law

People v. Parisi

46 Mich. App. 322 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1973

that the officers were qualified to identify this odor as being burning marijuana. … Defendant contends that the odor of marijuana, by itself, cannot establish probable cause.

People v. Bieri

153 Mich. App. 696 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1986

Second, Miller had not spent enough time in jail to establish a reputation. … One’s community can be either where one lives or works, and a reputation may be established wherever one interacts with others over a period of time.

Crancer v. Board of Regents

156 Mich. App. 790 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1986

Plaintiff makes no claim that the criteria which she sought to establish for "provisional acceptance” should qualify any applicant for acceptance. … The duty to accommodate is necessarily dependent on establishment of the first two prongs; we believe that a prima facie showing of the failure to accommodate is made by establishing that a handicapped individual who qualifies

Van Arsdel v. Addison Township

37 Mich. App. 613 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 1972

Clearly there has been a direct and successful relationship between the imposed zoning and the welfare of the community. The public health and safety of the community have been maintained. … The burden is upon the attacking party to establish that the ordinance has no reasonable, substantial relationship to health, safety, morals, or general welfare.

Ray Township v. B & BS Gun Club

226 Mich. App. 724 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1998

Therefore, this case is clearly distinguishable from Maki v East Tawas, 385 Mich 151 ; 188 NW2d 593 (1971), in which the Michigan Supreme Court found a violation of the Title-Object Clause where a governmental immunity act … stated in its title that it provided immunity for injuries caused by negligence but within its body provided for immunity from all tort liability.

Bruni v. City of Farmington Hills

96 Mich. App. 664 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1980

In order for a cluster option to be approved, it must first be determined whether or not the land in question qualifies. … Merely calling a result "spot zoning” does not establish the invalidity of an ordinance provision.

Joshua Wright v. Brandon J Patton

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2026

Regarding intentional torts, our Supreme Court’s decision in Ross “clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law.” Id. at 473. … Defendants must establish their entitlement to governmental immunity as an affirmative defense. Ray v Swager, 501 Mich 52, 62; 903 NW2d 366 (2017).

Attorney General v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

292 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 2011

Plaintiffs’ action is clearly based on a legal or equitable theory of liability. Plaintiffs allege that Merck is liable for violating MCL 400.607 of the MFCA and under the equitable principle of unjust enrichment. … The trial court properly determined that plaintiffs common-law fraud claim is, in substance, a product liability action subject to the absolute defense established by MCL 600.2946(5).

Lawrence Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2014

comprehensive and broad immunity, and limited tort liability,10 to governmental entities, and any exceptions are interpreted narrowly “except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort … See MCL 101.1 (“[t]he council of any city may establish, construct and maintain sewers and drains . . .”)

KALKASKA CTY. BD., ROAD COMM'RS v. Nolan

249 Mich. App. 399 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2002

Defendants next argue that the trial court erred in finding that the disputed trail qualified as a public highway by user. … Because the record contains evidence establishing each highway by user element, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the disputed trail constituted a public highway and that the *404 court

Sergio Love v. Michael Notoriano

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 2019

“An official has qualified immunity from suits under 42 USC 1983 when the official’s conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Holeton … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

People of Michigan v. Joel Howard James

326 Mich. App. 98 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2018

Under the federal Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, a person has the fundamental right to travel across the United States. … Rather, the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence to establish that there was probable cause to believe that defendant sexually assaulted the complainant.

People v. Lockett

295 Mich. App. 165 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2012

The references to “the victim” in these subdivisions clearly refer back to the language in the first sentence of subsection (1) *178 concerning “another person.” … The immunity instruction’s cautions about S.’s credibility were extensive enough to sufficiently protect defendants’ rights.

Arim v. General Motors Corp.

206 Mich. App. 178 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1994

Moreover, plaintiffs fail to establish the "sham” exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. … But a perusal of the evidence clearly shows that the bar, which was already considering an investigation of unnecessary transmission repairs at the time, contacted gm.

Duskin v. Department of Human Services

304 Mich. App. 645 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2014

We conclude that the trial court clearly erred by finding that the minority males established numerosity. 2. … We conclude that the trial court clearly erred when it found that the minority males established typicality. 4.

Universal Life Church, Inc v. Commissioner of Lottery

96 Mich. App. 385 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1980

The record indicates that, if Universal Life Church, Inc. of California was the applicant and recipient of the bingo licenses, it clearly was a qualified organization, either because it had been in existence for a period … Plaintiff finally argues that MCL 432.103(6); MSA 18.969(103)(6) violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by favoring more established religions.

Carter v. Ann Arbor City Attorney

271 Mich. App. 425 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2006

Although those qualifications may have established plaintiffs eligibility to be considered for the position, those qualifications did not establish that he was “qualified” for the job. … Meiland v Wayne Probate Judge, 359 Mich 78 ; 101 NW2d 336 (1960), also cited by plaintiff, involved the reinstatement of an employee in a civil service position that he was clearly qualified to occupy.

Higgins v. Detroit Osteopathic Hospital Corp.

154 Mich. App. 752 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1986

The court, however, found this testimony insufficient to establish Dr. Vincent’s knowledge of the osteopathic standard of care for breech vaginal deliveries. Plaintiffs attorney did not present the testimony of Lee B. … Under the facts of this case, we can not conclude that the trial court erred in its application of partial immunity pursuant to MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12).

Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n

317 Mich. App. 1 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2016

Nor does the FOIA extend blanket immunity from disclosure of public records to any specific “public body.” … In my view, this form of statutory amendment fully qualifies as “piecemeal.” 6 Nor am I persuaded that because § 13(1)(d) of the FOIA permits the Legislature to create additional exemptions, § 134(4) passes constitutional