Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heather Lynn Hannay v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2018Thus, “MCL 691.1405 and MCL 500.3135 may be read harmoniously to provide that a plaintiff may avoid governmental immunity if he suffers ‘bodily injury’ under the motor vehicle exception, but he must also meet the requirements contained within the enumerated exceptions to the no-fault act’s abolition of tort liability, such as the ‘death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement’ threshold pertaining to recovery of noneconomic damages.” Hannay, 497 Mich at 76 n 92.7 As discussed above, for purposes of the summary disposition motion defendant does not dispute that 2018Thus, “MCL 691.1405 and MCL 500.3135 may be read harmoniously to provide that a plaintiff may avoid governmental immunity if he suffers ‘bodily injury’ under the motor vehicle exception, but he must also meet the requirements contained within the enumerated exceptions to the no-fault act’s abolition of tort liability, such as the ‘death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement’ threshold pertaining to recovery of noneconomic damages.” Hannay, 497 Mich at 76 n 92.7 As discussed above, for purposes of the summary disposition motion defendant does not dispute that | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hannay v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2014Rather, MCL 691.1405 and MCL 500.3135 may be read harmoniously to provide that a plaintiff may avoid governmental immunity if he suffers “bodily injury” under the motor vehicle exception, but he must also meet the requirements contained within the enumerated exceptions to the no-fault act’s abolition of tort liability, such as the “death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement” threshold pertaining to recovery of noneconomic damages. 93 Hannay, 299 Mich App at 270 . 94 Hunter, 300 Mich App at 241 . 2014Rather, MCL 691.1405 and MCL 500.3135 may be read harmoniously to provide that a plaintiff may avoid governmental immunity if he suffers “bodily injury” under the motor vehicle exception, but he must also meet the requirements contained within the enumerated exceptions to the no-fault act’s abolition of tort liability, such as the “death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement” threshold pertaining to recovery of noneconomic damages. 93 Hannay, 299 Mich App at 270 . 94 Hunter, 300 Mich App at 241. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Allen v. Bloomfield Hills School District
green
2 sentences2023“The plain language of MCL 691.1405 and MCL 500.3135 may be read harmoniously to provide that a plaintiff may avoid governmental immunity if he suffers “bodily injury” under the motor vehicle exception of MCL 691.1405, but he must also satisfy the no-fault act threshold for bringing a third-party tort claim, i.e., a plaintiff must establish a serious impairment of a body function as stated in MCL 500.3135.” Allen v Bloomfield Hills Sch Dist, 281 Mich App 49, 55-56 ; 760 NW2d 811 (2008). -12- (5) As used in this section, “serious impairment of body function” means an impairment that satisfies a 2023“The plain language of MCL 691.1405 and MCL 500.3135 may be read harmoniously to provide that a plaintiff may avoid governmental immunity if he suffers “bodily injury” under the motor vehicle exception of MCL 691.1405, but he must also satisfy the no-fault act threshold for bringing a third-party tort claim, i.e., a plaintiff must establish a serious impairment of a body function as stated in MCL 500.3135.” Allen v Bloomfield Hills Sch Dist, 281 Mich App 49, 55-56 ; 760 NW2d 811 (2008). -12- (5) As used in this section, “serious impairment of body function” means an impairment that satisfies a | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.