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.
40 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Linton v. Arenac County Road Commissiongreen2 sentences2018Consequently, this Court in Linton, 273 Mich App at 114 (citation omitted), noted that one element of a claim under the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity was “that the claimant provided notice as set forth in MCL 691.1419.” Plaintiffs “must satisfy all of these elements to survive a motion for summary disposition based on governmental immunity.” Cannon Twp, 311 Mich App at 416 . 2016The elements a claimant must demonstrate to avoid governmental immunity under the sewage disposal system event exception are as follows: (1) that the claimant suffered property damage or physical injuries caused by a sewage disposal system event;21 (2) that the governmental agency against which the claim is made is “an appropriate governmental agency,”22 which is defined as “a governmental agency that, at the time of a sewage disposal system event, owned or operated, or directly or indirectly discharged into, the portion of the sewage disposal system that allegedly caused damage or physical in | 4 | 4 |
Cannon Township v. Rockford Public Schoolsgreen2 sentences2018Consequently, this Court in Linton, 273 Mich App at 114 (citation omitted), noted that one element of a claim under the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity was “that the claimant provided notice as set forth in MCL 691.1419.” Plaintiffs “must satisfy all of these elements to survive a motion for summary disposition based on governmental immunity.” Cannon Twp, 311 Mich App at 416 . 2018Plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy that element of a claim under the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity warranted summary disposition in favor of Flint, see Cannon Twp, 311 Mich App at 416 ; MCL 691.1417; MCL 691.1419, and the trial court erred in failing to do so. | 2 | 2 |
Dextrom v. Wexford Countygreen2 sentences2018As this Court explained in Dextrom, 287 Mich App at 430 , “[a] trial is not the proper remedial avenue to take in resolving the factual questions under MCR 2.116(C)(7) dealing with governmental immunity.” Instead, because the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity remains a question of law for the court, a remand for an evidentiary hearing is appropriate. 2018As this Court explained in Dextrom, 287 Mich App at 430 , “[a] trial is not the proper remedial avenue to take in resolving the factual questions under MCR 2.116(C)(7) dealing with governmental immunity.” Instead, because the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity remains a question of law for the court, a remand for an evidentiary hearing is appropriate. | 2 | 2 |
Odom v. Wayne Countygreen2 sentences2025The established “statutory exceptions to the governmental immunity provided to the state and its agencies are the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage- disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Odom v Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 , 478 n 62; 760 NW2d 217 (2008) (citation omitted). 2025The established “statutory exceptions to the governmental immunity provided to the state and its agencies are the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage- disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Odom v Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 , 478 n 62; 760 NW2d 217 (2008) (citation omitted). | 1 | 13 |
Willett v. Waterford Charter Townshipgreen2 sentences2018Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283 ; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2) and (3), see Willet, 271 Mich App at 49 . 2018Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283 ; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2) and (3), see Willet, 271 Mich App at 49 . | 1 | 6 |
Nawrocki v. MacOmb County Road Commissiongreen2 sentences2019As our Supreme Court explained in Nawrocki, 463 Mich at 156 -157: Immunity from tort liability, as provided by MCL § 691.1407 [ ] is expressed in the broadest possible language—it extends immunity to all governmental agencies for all tort liability whenever they are engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. * * * Because immunity necessarily implies that a “wrong” has occurred, we are cognizant that some tort claims, against a governmental agency, will inevitably go unremedied. 2018See Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000); Willett v Waterford Twp, 271 Mich App 38, 46 ; 718 NW2d 386 (2006). | 1 | 2 |
Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2024The majority opinion holds that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to the government defendants because 3 We note that the continuing wrongs doctrine was abrogated in Garg v Macomb Co Comm Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 266, 290 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005). -5- plaintiffs created a question of fact regarding the element of substantial proximate cause, the proof of which is required to establish the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity. 2024The majority opinion holds that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to the government defendants because 3 We note that the continuing wrongs doctrine was abrogated in Garg v Macomb Co Comm Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 266, 290 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005). -5- plaintiffs created a question of fact regarding the element of substantial proximate cause, the proof of which is required to establish the sewage disposal system event exception to governmental immunity. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Glostergreen2 sentences2024In Fingerle v Ann Arbor, 308 Mich App 318 ; 863 NW2d 698 (2014), aff’d but vacated 498 Mich 910 (2015), this Court addressed the issue of proximate cause in the context of the sewage exception to the GTLA, but the Supreme Court vacated the lead opinion and adopted the concurring opinion. 2024In the concurring opinion adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court, Fingerle v Ann Arbor, 498 Mich at 910, the concurring judge opined that the plaintiff could not establish substantial proximate cause pursuant to the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity, Fingerle, 308 Mich App at 339 (O’CONNELL, J. concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arborgreen2 sentences2024In Fingerle v Ann Arbor, 308 Mich App 318 ; 863 NW2d 698 (2014), aff’d but vacated 498 Mich 910 (2015), this Court addressed the issue of proximate cause in the context of the sewage exception to the GTLA, but the Supreme Court vacated the lead opinion and adopted the concurring opinion. 2024In the concurring opinion adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court, Fingerle v Ann Arbor, 498 Mich at 910, the concurring judge opined that the plaintiff could not establish substantial proximate cause pursuant to the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity, Fingerle, 308 Mich App at 339 (O’CONNELL, J. concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snydergreen1 sentence2019Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.” And the GTLA defines “governmental agency” as “this state or a political subdivision.” MCL 691.1401(a). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exc | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.red2 sentences2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa 2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2022See MCL 691.1401(a), (d), and (e). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -3- processing of applications for a license. 2021While we concur with plaintiffs’ broad statement, the individual 4 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -5- council members are not parties to this lawsuit. | 16 | 2014–2024 |
People v. Perry
green
2 sentences2022See MCL 691.1401(a), (d), and (e). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -3- processing of applications for a license. 2021While we concur with plaintiffs’ broad statement, the individual 4 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -5- council members are not parties to this lawsuit. | 13 | 2014–2024 |
Heather Lynn Hannay v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2018See Linton v Arenac Co Rd Comm, 273 Mich App 107, 113-114 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006); Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014); Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 , 478 n 62; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). 2015“The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity [are]: ‘the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).’ ” Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014), quoting Wesche v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). | 5 | 2015–2018 |
People v. Carrodine
green
2 sentences2018See Linton v Arenac Co Rd Comm, 273 Mich App 107, 113-114 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006); Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014); Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 , 478 n 62; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). 2016The elements a claimant must demonstrate to avoid governmental immunity under the sewage disposal system event exception are as follows: (1) that the claimant suffered property damage or physical injuries caused by a sewage disposal system event;21 (2) that the governmental agency against which the claim is made is “an appropriate governmental agency,”22 which is defined as “a governmental agency that, at the time of a sewage disposal system event, owned or operated, or directly or indirectly discharged into, the portion of the sewage disposal system that allegedly caused damage or physical in | 3 | 2016–2018 |
Bosanic v. Motz Development, Inc
green
2 sentences2018Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283 ; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2) and (3), see Willet, 271 Mich App at 49 . 2018Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283 ; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2) and (3), see Willet, 271 Mich App at 49 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Abay v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
green
2 sentences2018Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283 ; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2) and (3), see Willet, 271 Mich App at 49 . 2018Although MCL 691.1417(3) “clearly provides [plaintiffs’] a potential cause of action,” Bosanic v Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277, 283 ; 745 NW2d 513 (2007), the sewage-disposal- system-event exception to governmental immunity is governed by MCL 691.1417(2) and (3), see Willet, 271 Mich App at 49 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Coleman v. Kootsillas
green
2 sentences2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998). 2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Herman v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998). 2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Corby Energy Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025(GTLA)] is broad and its exceptions are to be narrowly construed . . . .” State Farm Fire & Cas Co v Corby Energy Servs, Inc, 271 Mich App 480, 485 ; 722 NW2d 906 (2006). 2025(GTLA)] is broad and its exceptions are to be narrowly construed . . . .” State Farm Fire & Cas Co v Corby Energy Servs, Inc, 271 Mich App 480, 485 ; 722 NW2d 906 (2006). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2025And, in my judgment, the majority also errs by finding potentially viable a proffered claim under the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity. -1- As the majority recognizes, “governmental agencies, with a few exceptions, are generally statutorily immune from tort liability.” Rowland v Washtenaw County Rd Comm’n, 477 Mich 197, 203 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007). “[T]he immunity provided by the [governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq. 2025And, in my judgment, the majority also errs by finding potentially viable a proffered claim under the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity. -1- As the majority recognizes, “governmental agencies, with a few exceptions, are generally statutorily immune from tort liability.” Rowland v Washtenaw County Rd Comm’n, 477 Mich 197, 203 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007). “[T]he immunity provided by the [governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. Department of Public Health
green
2 sentences2019Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.” And the GTLA defines “governmental agency” as “this state or a political subdivision.” MCL 691.1401(a). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exc 2019Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.” And the GTLA defines “governmental agency” as “this state or a political subdivision.” MCL 691.1401(a). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exc | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bernardoni v. City of Saginaw
green
2 sentences2018“Thus, to invoke the highway 1 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche, 480 Mich at 84 n 10. -2- exception as it pertains to sidewalks, a plaintiff must show that the defect existed at least 30 days before the accident.” Bernardoni v Saginaw, 499 Mich 470, 474 ; 886 NW2d 109 (2016). 2018“Thus, to invoke the highway 1 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche, 480 Mich at 84 n 10. -2- exception as it pertains to sidewalks, a plaintiff must show that the defect existed at least 30 days before the accident.” Bernardoni v Saginaw, 499 Mich 470, 474 ; 886 NW2d 109 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Evans v. GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
neutral
1 sentence2011Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kik v. Sbraccia
neutral
2 sentences2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag 2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cooper v. Auto Club Insurance Association
neutral
1 sentence2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kik v. Sbraccia
neutral
1 sentence2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.