availability immunity in Michigan

2018App.3d at 344 -345 , 145 Ill.Dec. 274 , 556 N.E.2d 892 . 10 "The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 468 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2018App.3d at 344 -345 , 145 Ill.Dec. 274 , 556 N.E.2d 892 . 10 "The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 468 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2017Id.

2017Id.

2017See, e.g., Clark v Los Angeles, 187 Cal App 2d 792, 801; 9 Cal Rptr 913 (1960) (“[T]he right to assert the statute of limitations as a defense to the annulment action was a personal right . . . .”) (emphasis added). 5 rights of persons who were not parties,” but “was in no position to . . . circumvent the possible defenses of [Christopher] to [plaintiff’s] claims, such as . . . the statute of limitations.” Yedinak v Yedinak, 383 Mich 409, 419 ; 175 NW2d 706 (1970) (opinion by ADAMS, J.).3 Until Christopher is properly designated as a defendant and exercises his right to raise the statute of li

2017See, e.g., Clark v Los Angeles, 187 Cal App 2d 792, 801; 9 Cal Rptr 913 (1960) (“[T]he right to assert the statute of limitations as a defense to the annulment action was a personal right . . . .”) (emphasis added). 5 rights of persons who were not parties,” but “was in no position to . . . circumvent the possible defenses of [Christopher] to [plaintiff’s] claims, such as . . . the statute of limitations.” Yedinak v Yedinak, 383 Mich 409, 419 ; 175 NW2d 706 (1970) (opinion by ADAMS, J.).3 Until Christopher is properly designated as a defendant and exercises his right to raise the statute of li

2017Such a rule would discourage implementation of cost-efficient measures and encourage deficit spending.” Hyde, 426 Mich at 258 .

2017Such a rule would discourage implementation of cost-efficient measures and encourage deficit spending.” Hyde, 426 Mich at 258 .

2007Plaintiff was not aware of the killer’s identity, nor was 11 Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Co, 388 Mich 146, 150 ; 200 NW2d 70 (1972). 9 plaintiff aware of the connection the killer had to any of the potential defendants.

2007Plaintiff was not aware of the killer’s identity, nor was 11 Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Co, 388 Mich 146, 150 ; 200 NW2d 70 (1972). 9 plaintiff aware of the connection the killer had to any of the potential defendants.

2018App.3d at 344 -345 , 145 Ill.Dec. 274 , 556 N.E.2d 892 . 10 "The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 468 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2018App.3d at 344 -345 , 145 Ill.Dec. 274 , 556 N.E.2d 892 . 10 "The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given." Miranda , 384 U.S. at 468 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2018Miranda, 384 US at 470 ; Elliott, 494 Mich at 301 .

2015Fane, 465 Mich at 74 .

2013ANALYSIS Before the Michigan Legislature’s enactment of the GTLA, this Court’s jurisprudence recognized the existence of governmental immunity for all levels of government, including townships, cities, school districts, villages, and counties when 18 Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . 19 Id. 20 See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 445 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); see also Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (noting a case should proceed to trial if there is a question of fact that would affect the availability of immunity). 21 Odom, 482 Mich at 467 . 22 Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239, 246-

2013ANALYSIS Before the Michigan Legislature’s enactment of the GTLA, this Court’s jurisprudence recognized the existence of governmental immunity for all levels of government, including townships, cities, school districts, villages, and counties when 18 Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . 19 Id. 20 See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 445 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); see also Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (noting a case should proceed to trial if there is a question of fact that would affect the availability of immunity). 21 Odom, 482 Mich at 467 . 22 Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239, 246-

2013Id. at 705-706 .

2013ANALYSIS Before the Michigan Legislature’s enactment of the GTLA, this Court’s jurisprudence recognized the existence of governmental immunity for all levels of government, including townships, cities, school districts, villages, and counties when 18 Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . 19 Id. 20 See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 445 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); see also Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (noting a case should proceed to trial if there is a question of fact that would affect the availability of immunity). 21 Odom, 482 Mich at 467 . 22 Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239, 246-

2013We explained that, in cases of negligence, to qualify for immunity under MCL 691.1407(2), the governmental employee must show: (a) the individual was acting or reasonably believed that he was acting within the scope of his authority, (b) the governmental agency was engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, and (c) the individual’s conduct [did not] amount[] to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of the injury or damage. [Odom, 482 Mich at 479-480 .] In comparison, we recognized that immunity is available to lower-level employees against claims of an intentional

2013We modified the ultra 24 See Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 682 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (citation omitted); Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 605, 695 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 25 Ross, 420 Mich at 626 .

2013We modified the ultra 24 See Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 682 ; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) (citation omitted); Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 605, 695 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 25 Ross, 420 Mich at 626 .

2013ANALYSIS Before the Michigan Legislature’s enactment of the GTLA, this Court’s jurisprudence recognized the existence of governmental immunity for all levels of government, including townships, cities, school districts, villages, and counties when 18 Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . 19 Id. 20 See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 445 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); see also Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (noting a case should proceed to trial if there is a question of fact that would affect the availability of immunity). 21 Odom, 482 Mich at 467 . 22 Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239, 246-

2013ANALYSIS Before the Michigan Legislature’s enactment of the GTLA, this Court’s jurisprudence recognized the existence of governmental immunity for all levels of government, including townships, cities, school districts, villages, and counties when 18 Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . 19 Id. 20 See Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 445 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); see also Guider v Smith, 431 Mich 559, 572 ; 431 NW2d 810 (1988) (noting a case should proceed to trial if there is a question of fact that would affect the availability of immunity). 21 Odom, 482 Mich at 467 . 22 Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239, 246-

2010In other words, an immunity functions “as a defense so that acts that would otherwise be tortious are permissible because of the circumstances in which they occur.” Domestic Linen Supply & Laundry Co v Stone, 111 Mich App 827, 833 ; 314 NW2d 773 (1981).

2010In other words, an immunity functions “as a defense so that acts that would otherwise be tortious are permissible because of the circumstances in which they occur.” Domestic Linen Supply & Laundry Co v Stone, 111 Mich App 827, 833 ; 314 NW2d 773 (1981).

2010Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 157 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000).

2010Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 157 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000).

2009People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229, 235 , 586 N.W.2d 906 (1998).

2009People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229, 235 , 586 N.W.2d 906 (1998).

2007The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the availability requirement of Const 1963, art 8, § 9 created no constitutional mandate that libraries provide nonresident borrowing privileges or make all resident services accessible to nonresidents. 268 Mich App 642, 652 ; 708 NW2d 740 (2005).

2007The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the availability requirement of Const 1963, art 8, § 9 created no constitutional mandate that libraries provide nonresident borrowing privileges or make all resident services accessible to nonresidents. 268 Mich App 642, 652 ; 708 NW2d 740 (2005).

2007After hearing oral argument on plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, this Court granted leave to appeal. 477 Mich. 919 , 722 N.W.2d 891 (2006).

2007After hearing oral argument on plaintiffs application for leave to appeal, this Court granted leave to appeal. 477 Mich 919 (2006).

2007After hearing oral argument on plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, this Court granted leave to appeal. 477 Mich. 919 , 722 N.W.2d 891 (2006).

2002Detroit Base Coalition v. Dep't of Social Services, 431 Mich. 172, 191-192 , 428 N.W.2d 335 (1988); MCR 2.605(A).

2002Detroit Base Coalition v. Dep't of Social Services, 431 Mich. 172, 191-192 , 428 N.W.2d 335 (1988); MCR 2.605(A).

2000The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in New York v Hill, 528 US 110 ,__; 120 S Ct 659, 663 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000): We have, however, “in the context of a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions,” articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v Mezzanatto, 513 US 196, 200-201 ; 115 S Ct 797 ; 130 L Ed 2d 697 (1995), and we have recognized that “[t]he most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver,” Peretz v United States, 501 US 923, 936 ; 111 S Ct 2661 ; 115 L Ed 2d 808 (1991).

2000The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in New York v Hill, 528 US 110 ,__; 120 S Ct 659, 663 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000): We have, however, “in the context of a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions,” articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v Mezzanatto, 513 US 196, 200-201 ; 115 S Ct 797 ; 130 L Ed 2d 697 (1995), and we have recognized that “[t]he most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver,” Peretz v United States, 501 US 923, 936 ; 111 S Ct 2661 ; 115 L Ed 2d 808 (1991).

2000The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in New York v Hill, 528 US 110 ,__; 120 S Ct 659, 663 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000): We have, however, “in the context of a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions,” articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v Mezzanatto, 513 US 196, 200-201 ; 115 S Ct 797 ; 130 L Ed 2d 697 (1995), and we have recognized that “[t]he most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver,” Peretz v United States, 501 US 923, 936 ; 111 S Ct 2661 ; 115 L Ed 2d 808 (1991).

2000The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in New York v Hill, 528 US 110 ,__; 120 S Ct 659, 663 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000): We have, however, “in the context of a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions,” articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v Mezzanatto, 513 US 196, 200-201 ; 115 S Ct 797 ; 130 L Ed 2d 697 (1995), and we have recognized that “[t]he most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver,” Peretz v United States, 501 US 923, 936 ; 111 S Ct 2661 ; 115 L Ed 2d 808 (1991).

2000The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in New York v Hill, 528 US 110 ,__; 120 S Ct 659, 663 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000): We have, however, “in the context of a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions,” articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v Mezzanatto, 513 US 196, 200-201 ; 115 S Ct 797 ; 130 L Ed 2d 697 (1995), and we have recognized that “[t]he most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver,” Peretz v United States, 501 US 923, 936 ; 111 S Ct 2661 ; 115 L Ed 2d 808 (1991).

2000The United States Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in New York v Hill, 528 US 110 ,__; 120 S Ct 659, 663 ; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000): We have, however, “in the context of a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions,” articulated a general rule that presumes the availability of waiver, United States v Mezzanatto, 513 US 196, 200-201 ; 115 S Ct 797 ; 130 L Ed 2d 697 (1995), and we have recognized that “[t]he most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver,” Peretz v United States, 501 US 923, 936 ; 111 S Ct 2661 ; 115 L Ed 2d 808 (1991).

1993Sharp v Preferred Risk Mut Ins Co, 142 Mich App 499, 509-510 ; 370 NW2d 619 (1985); Jacobs v DAIIE, 107 Mich App 424, 432 ; 309 NW2d 627 (1981).

1993Sharp v Preferred Risk Mut Ins Co, 142 Mich App 499, 509-510 ; 370 NW2d 619 (1985); Jacobs v DAIIE, 107 Mich App 424, 432 ; 309 NW2d 627 (1981).

1993Sharp v Preferred Risk Mut Ins Co, 142 Mich App 499, 509-510 ; 370 NW2d 619 (1985); Jacobs v DAIIE, 107 Mich App 424, 432 ; 309 NW2d 627 (1981).

1993Sharp v Preferred Risk Mut Ins Co, 142 Mich App 499, 509-510 ; 370 NW2d 619 (1985); Jacobs v DAIIE, 107 Mich App 424, 432 ; 309 NW2d 627 (1981).