Crook v. Patterson, 201 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Crook v. Patterson, 201 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tim Edward Brugger II v. Midland County Bd of Road Commissioners (mich, 2021-06-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Tim Edward Brugger II v. Midland County Bd of Road Commissioners
Mich. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court far exceeds its proper function when it declares this enactment unfair and unenforceable.[15] Although the statute at issue in Reich was the GTLA, in Crook v Patterson, 16 the Court of Appeals recognized that Reich’s reasoning applied with equal force to the County Road Law, holding that the 60-day notice provision in MCL 224.21(3) was also unconstitutional. 13 Id. at 623-624 . 14 Id. at 623 . 15 Id. at 626 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); see Rowland, 477 Mich at 207 (quoting Reich, 386 Mich at 626 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). 16 Crook v Patterson, 42 Mich App 241, 241 ; 201 NW2d 676 (19…
discussed Cited "see" Estate of Brendon Pearce v. Eaton County Road Commission
Mich. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court far exceeds its proper function when it declares this enactment unfair and unenforceable.[15] Although the statute at issue in Reich was the GTLA, in Crook v Patterson, 16 the Court of Appeals recognized that Reich’s reasoning applied with equal force to the County Road Law, holding that the 60-day notice provision in MCL 224.21(3) was also unconstitutional. 13 Id. at 623-624 . 14 Id. at 623 . 15 Id. at 626 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); see Rowland, 477 Mich at 207 (quoting Reich, 386 Mich at 626 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). 16 Crook v Patterson, 42 Mich App 241, 241 ; 201 NW2d 676 (19…
discussed Cited "see" Tim Edward Brugger II v. Midland County Bd of Road Commissioners
Mich. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
This Court far exceeds its proper function when it declares this enactment unfair and unenforceable.[15] Although the statute at issue in Reich was the GTLA, in Crook v Patterson, 16 the Court of Appeals recognized that Reich’s reasoning applied with equal force to the County Road Law, holding that the 60-day notice provision in MCL 224.21(3) was also unconstitutional. 13 Id. at 623-624 . 14 Id. at 623 . 15 Id. at 626 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); see Rowland, 477 Mich at 207 (quoting Reich, 386 Mich at 626 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). 16 Crook v Patterson, 42 Mich App 241, 241 ; 201 NW2d 676 (19…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CROOK
v.
PATTERSON.
12264.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Jul 26, 1972.
201 N.W.2d 676
1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 921
Danhof, P.J., and Levin and Borradaile.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Shanahan & Scheid, for plaintiff.

Collison & Fordney, for defendant Board of Road Commissioners.

Before: DANHOF, P.J., and LEVIN and BORRADAILE,[*] JJ.

[*242] PER CURIAM.

In Reich v State Highway Department, 386 Mich 617 (1972), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the 60-day-notice provision of § 4 of the Government Tort Immunity Act (1964 PA 170; MCLA 691.1404, et seq.; MSA 3.996[104], et seq.) violates the equal protection guarantees of the Michigan and Federal Constitutions and is, therefore, void and of no effect.

Under the provisions of that act, "the liability, procedure and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in section 21, chapter 4, of Act No. 283 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended, being section 224.21 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 [MCLA 224.21; MSA 9.121]". MCLA 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102).

Section 21 of the 1909 act, like § 4 of the 1964 act, requires that notice of injury be given within 60 days from the time the injury occurs. The rationale of Reich obliges us to hold that the 60-day-notice provision of § 21 of the 1909 act, like the 60-day-notice provision of the 1964 act, is unconstitutional.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.

[*] Probate judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.