Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420 (Mich. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420 (Mich. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
193 citation events (193 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Turnbull v. Frankenmuth Ins. Co., No. 1:24-cv-10863 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
706 N.W.2d at 421 Establishing elements of defamation claim24 citing casesindicating that defamation per se renders a statement actionable “irrespective of special harm4 citing courts put it this way
  • Turnbull v. Frankenmuth Ins. Co., No. 1:24-cv-10863 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2025).
    Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005).
  • Crown Equip. Corp. v. Gleason, No. 2:23-cv-12016 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2025). 2 cites
    “In Michigan, the four basic elements of a defamation claim are as follows: ‘(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on t…
  • Kelly v. The Daily Beast Co. LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00482 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 9, 2022).
    ANALYSIS A. Defamation A defamation claim under Michigan law has the following four elements: “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least…
  • Bowles v. Macomb Cmty. Coll., 558 F. Supp. 3d 539 (E.D. Mich. 2021).published
    Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enter., 487 Mich. 102 , 793 N.W.2d 533 , 540 (2010) (emphasis added) (citing Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005)).
  • Raboczkay v. Taylor, City of, No. 2:19-cv-10255 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2021).
    Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005).
  • Shane Anders v. Tony Cuevas, 984 F.3d 1166 (6th Cir. 2021).published
    Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005).
  • Drakes Collision, Inc. v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., No. 2:19-cv-13517 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2020).
    A defamation claim under Michigan law requires proof of four elements: “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the pa…
  • April Ryniewicz v. Clarivate Analytics, 803 F. App'x 858 (6th Cir. 2020).unpublished 3 cites
    Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enter., 793 N.W.2d 533 , 540 (Mich. 2010) (citing Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005)).
  • Marks One Car Rental, Inc v. Auto Club Grp. Ins., No. 18-1386 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2019).unpublished 2 cites
    Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
  • McKee v. Cosby, 874 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2017).published
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005) (citations omitted).
Show 14 more citing cases
  • McKee v. Cosby, 236 F. Supp. 3d 427 (D. Mass. 2017).published
    Under Michigan common law, [t]o prevail on a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must establish the follovidng elements: “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3)…
  • Gilliam v. Ordiway, 147 F. Supp. 3d 664 (E.D. Mich. 2015).published 2 cites
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005). 3 “[A]n accusation of the commission of a crime is defamatory per se, meaning that special harm need not be proved.” Kevorkian v. AMA, 237 Mich.App. 1 , 602 N.W.2d 233, 237 (199…
  • Christopher Armstrong v. Andrew Shirvell, 596 F. App'x 433 (6th Cir. 2015).unpublished
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005).
  • Hildebrant v. Meredith Corp., 63 F. Supp. 3d 732 (E.D. Mich. 2014).published
    These alleged defamations can be divided into two categories: (1) the statements that Plaintiffs were “accused of stealing items during a raid” and (2) the statement that Plaintiffs were “accused of stealing drugs during a raid.” In Michig…
  • Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP, 759 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2014).published
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005).
  • Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 522 F. App'x 283 (6th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005).
  • Holly Handlon v. Rite Aid Servs., LLC, 513 F. App'x 523 (6th Cir. 2013).unpublished
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005).
  • Gail Bierman & Beth Weier v. Scott Weier & Author Solutions, Inc., 826 N.W.2d 436 (Iowa 2013).published 2 cites
    (indicating that defamation per se renders a statement actionable “irrespective of special harm)
  • Clifford Owhor v. St. John Health-Providence Hosp., 503 F. App'x 307 (6th Cir. 2012).unpublished
    Mi-tan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 , 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (2005).
  • Dumas v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 837 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Mich. 2011).published
    Defamation consists of “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionabilit…
  • Roberto Romero v. Irina Buhimschi, 396 F. App'x 224 (6th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    To establish a claim for defamation under Michigan law, a plaintiff must show “(1) a false and defamatory statement con *236 cerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to neglige…
  • Ogle v. Hocker, 669 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Mich. 2009).published 2 cites
    “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3)fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability of…”
  • Michigan Mun. Risk Mgmt. Auth. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 559 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Mich. 2008).published
    “The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the pu…”
  • EBI-Detroit, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 279 F. App'x 340 (6th Cir. 2008).unpublished
    “[t]he elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the…”
706 N.W.2d at 422 Accrual of defamation claims under Michigan law11 citing cases“A defamation claim accrues when ‘the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results”2 citing courts quote it · 9 listed here
474 Mich. at 24 Elements of defamation claim and limitations period6 citing cases“a defamation claim accrues when 'the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.”7 citing courts quote it
  • Anagonye v. Transform Auto. LLC, No. 2:24-cv-11251 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2024).
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21, 24 (2005).
  • Menge v. Shafii, No. 2:23-cv-11339 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2024).
    “The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the pu…”
  • United Resin, Inc. v. Los, No. 2:22-cv-10838 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2022).
    Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21, 24 (2005) (emphasis added).
  • Sweigert v. Cable News Network, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-12933, 2022 WL 842322 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2022).
    Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich. 102, 113 (2010) (citing Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21, 24 (2005)).
  • Blackwell, II v. Jones Day Law Firm, No. 2:20-cv-11493, 2021 WL 764124 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2021).
    (defining defamatory statement not only as false, but unprivileged, actionable and made negligently to a third party.)
  • Liberty Mut. v. Angelo, No. 2:19-cv-12051 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2020).
    “The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the pu…”
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mitan
v.
Campbell
Docket 126451.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Dec 6, 2005.
Published opinion
706 N.W.2d 420
Mitán & Associates, EC. (by Keith J. Mitán), for the plaintiff., Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Patrick J. O’Brien and Mark E. Donnelly, Assistant Attorneys General, for the defendant.
Taylor, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Corrigan, Young, Markman.
Cited by 91 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The question before us in this defamation case is whether the period of limitations [1] runs from the date of the alleged defamatory statement made by defendant or the date the statement was republished by a third party. We conclude that the limitations period ran from the date of the original alleged defamatory statement. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit court’s judgment of summary disposition.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was the public relations director of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services. On February 22, 2000, she was interviewed by a reporter from WXYZ-TV regarding employment claims made by plaintiffs employees. During the interview, defendant stated that plaintiff was a “bad egg,” a statement that[*23] plaintiff claims was defamatory. The statement was broadcast by WXYZ-TV on February 25, 2000. Plaintiff filed a defamation complaint on February 26, 2001 (February 25 was a Sunday), more than a year after defendant made her statement but within a year from the date it was republished by WXYZ-TV

The limitations period for a defamation claim is one year. MCL 600.5805(9). The circuit court granted defendant summary disposition based on the statute of limitations, MCR 2.116(C)(7), ruling that defendant’s statement to the reporter started the limitations period running, and that defendant could not be held responsible for the republication by WXYZ-TV The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. [2] It concluded that defendant could be liable on the basis of the republication because it was plausible that the broadcast was the natural, and possibly intended, result of the interview. The Court found this was a factual issue to be considered on remand.

Defendant applied for leave to appeal to this Court. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1). [3]

II. STANDARD of review

We review a summary disposition ruling de novo to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). Questions of statutory construction are also reviewed de novo. Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 62; 642 NW2d[*24] 663 (2002). In construing a statute, courts are to effect the intent of the Legislature, and if a statute is clear and unambiguous it should be enforced as written. Id. at 63.

III. ANALYSIS

The elements of a defamation claim are: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by publication. Rouch v Enquirer & News of Battle Creek (After Remand), 440 Mich 238, 251; 487 NW2d 205 (1992) (libel); Ledl v Quik Pik Food Stores, Inc, 133 Mich App 583, 589; 349 NW2d 529 (1984) (defamation).

The one-year limitations period for defamation claims is found in MCL 600.5805(1), (9):

(1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section.
(9) The period of limitations is 1 year for an action charging libel or slander. [Emphasis added.]

A defamation claim accrues when “the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” MCL 600.5827.

MCL 600.5805(1) and (9) are clear and unambiguous. Our Legislature has clearly provided that a defamation[*25] claim must be filed within one year from the date the claim first accrued. The claim first accrued when the defamatory statement was made on February 22, 2000. The statute does not contemplate extending the accrual of the claim on the basis of republication, regardless of whether the republication was intended by the speaker. [4] Because plaintiff filed suit against defendant more than a year after his claim first accrued, his cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

The plain language of MCL 600.5805 is inconsistent with plaintiffs claim that a third party’s expected republication of a defamatory statement affects the running of the limitations period for the initial statement. The statute provides a relatively short limitations period of one year; there is nothing in the statute suggesting that the period can effectively be lengthened where republication is anticipated. Rather than a rule of first accrual, the reasoning of the Court of Appeals changes the statute to a rule of last accrual. Such reasoning undermines the principles of finality and certainty behind a statute of limitations. See Stephens v Dixon, 449 Mich 531; 536 NW2d 755 (1995). [5]

[*26] IV CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the circuit court’s judgment of summary disposition is reinstated. [6]

Taylor, C.J., and Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Corrigan, YOUNG, and Markman, JJ., concurred.
1

Currently the statute of limitations is MCL 600.5805(9). Amendments to MCL 600.5805 since the alleged defamation occurred in this case have no effect on this case.

2

Mitan v Campbell, unpublished, opinion per curiam, issued May 20, 2004 (Docket No. 242486).

4

The republisher of the statement, WXYZ-Ty is not a party to this action. We are concerned only with defendant’s liability for WXYZ-TV’s republication of her statement.

5

The Court of Appeals relied on Tumbarella v Kroger Co, 85 Mich App 482, 496; 271 NW2d 284 (1978), for the proposition that the “general rule is that one who publishes a defamatory statement is liable for the injurious consequences of its repetition where the repetition is the natural and probable result of the original publication.” We neither accept nor reject that proposition because plaintiff neither alleged nor claimed damages for natural and probable consequences in his complaint. His sole allegation was that an injurious, defamatory statement was published on February 25, 2000, the date of the broadcast. Further, even if we were to accept the natural and probable consequences rule, no case from our jurisdiction has held that the rule extends the one-year period[*26] of limitations. The Tumbarella Court held merely that the original publisher was liable for the natural and probable consequences of his remarks. Because the Court of Appeals misinterpreted Tumbarella as extending the period of limitations, its rebanee on Tumbarella was misplaced.

6

Our decision renders moot the remaining arguments raised by plaintiff.