statutory exceptions to governmental immunity in Michigan

27 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 3 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Campbell v. City of Detroitgreen michctapp · 1973 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Campbell v City of Detroit, 51 Mich App 34, 37 ; 214 NW2d 337, 338 (1973). 1974Campbell v City of Detroit, 51 Mich App 34, 37 ; 214 NW2d 337, 338 (1973).	2	2
Pichette v. Manistique Public Schoolsgreen mich · 1978 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1988–1998 2 sentences 1998Use of the qualifying word general in front of the statutory language of “the public” appears traceable to Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268, 285 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978), where this Court said that the Legislature intended to protect the “general public” from injury by enacting the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity. 1998Use of the qualifying word general in front of the statutory language of “the public” appears traceable to Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268, 285 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978), where this Court said that the Legislature intended to protect the “general public” from injury by enacting the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity.	1	3
University of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins Agencygreen mich · 2010 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011In its opinion reversing the trial court and granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on Haliw v City of Sterling 8 Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429 , 434 n 6 (1994). 9 Regents of the Univ of Michigan v Titan Ins Co, 487 Mich 289, 297 (2010). 10 The statutory exceptions to governmental immunity include: (1) the “highway” exception, MCL 691.1402, (2) the “motor vehicle” exception, MCL 691.1405, (3) the “public building” exception, MCL 691.1406, (4) the “proprietary building” exception, MCL 691.1413, and (5) the “governmental hospital” exception,	1	1
Stanton v. City of Battle Creekgreen mich · 2002 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See Stanton v Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611, 618 ; 647 NW2d 508 (2002). 2010See Stanton v Battle Creek, 466 Mich 611, 618 ; 647 NW2d 508 (2002).	1	1
Chandler v. Muskegon Countygreen mich · 2002 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003Noting the well-established principle that the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity must be narrowly construed, the Court concluded that the phrase “ ‘operation of a motor vehicle’ means that the motor vehicle is being operated as a motor vehicle” and, therefore, encompasses only those “activities that are directly associated with the driving of a motor vehicle.” Id. at 320-321 (emphasis in original).	1	1
Michigan Educational Employees Mutual Insurance v. Morrisgreen mich · 1999 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002See MEEMIC, supra at 191, 596 N.W.2d 142 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
Odom v. Wayne County green mich · 2008 2 sentences 2024Odom, 482 Mich at 478 n 62. 2018Odom, 482 Mich at 478 n 62. -8- statute of limitations.	6	2009–2024
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights green michctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2024Moraccini v Sterling Heights, 296 Mich App 387, 391 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). 2024Moraccini v Sterling Heights, 296 Mich App 387, 391 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012).	5	2016–2024
Ross v. Consumers Power Co. red mich · 1985 2 sentences 2003With respect to MCL 691.1405, the broad construction of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity employed in Fiser became suspect when the Court issued Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 2003With respect to MCL 691.1405, the broad construction of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity employed in Fiser became suspect when the Court issued Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984).	2	2002–2003
Bruce T Wood v. City of Detroit green michctapp · 2018 2 sentences 2024Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 419 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018). 2024Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 419 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018).	1	2024–2024
McLean v. McElhaney green michctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2020McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich App 592, 598 ; 798 NW2d 29 (2010). 2020McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich App 592, 598 ; 798 NW2d 29 (2010).	1	2020–2020
Atkins v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation green mich · 2012 1 sentence 2018“Statutory notice provisions are a common means by which the government regulates the conditions under which a person may sue governmental entities.” Atkins, 492 Mich at 714 .	1	2018–2018
Cannon Township v. Rockford Public Schools green michctapp · 2015 1 sentence 2018As discussed, supra, one of “the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity is the ‘sewage disposal system event’ exception, MCL 691.1416 through MCL 691.1419.” Cannon Twp, 311 Mich App at 415 .	1	2018–2018
Linton v. Arenac County Road Commission green michctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2015MCL 691.1417(2) provides that “[a] governmental agency is immune from tort liability for the overflow or backup of a sewage disposal system unless the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal system event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.” In Linton v Arenac Co Rd Comm, 273 Mich App 107,113-114 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006), this Court set forth the elements a claimant must show in order to avoid governmental immunity under this exception: (1) that the claimant suffered property damage or physical injuries caused by a sewage disposal system event [see MCL 691.1417(2) an	1	2015–2015
People v. Carrodine green mich · 2007 1 sentence 2015MCL 691.1417(2) provides that “[a] governmental agency is immune from tort liability for the overflow or backup of a sewage disposal system unless the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal system event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.” In Linton v Arenac Co Rd Comm, 273 Mich App 107,113-114 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006), this Court set forth the elements a claimant must show in order to avoid governmental immunity under this exception: (1) that the claimant suffered property damage or physical injuries caused by a sewage disposal system event [see MCL 691.1417(2) an	1	2015–2015
Patterson v. Kleiman green mich · 1994 1 sentence 2011In its opinion reversing the trial court and granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on Haliw v City of Sterling 8 Patterson v Kleiman, 447 Mich 429 , 434 n 6 (1994). 9 Regents of the Univ of Michigan v Titan Ins Co, 487 Mich 289, 297 (2010). 10 The statutory exceptions to governmental immunity include: (1) the “highway” exception, MCL 691.1402, (2) the “motor vehicle” exception, MCL 691.1405, (3) the “public building” exception, MCL 691.1406, (4) the “proprietary building” exception, MCL 691.1413, and (5) the “governmental hospital” exception,	1	2011–2011
Klooster v. City of Charlevoix green mich · 2011 2 sentences 2011ANALYSIS The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, focusing on the language in the statute.15 The language provides “‘the most 11 Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289, 304 ; 795 NW2d 578 (2011). 2011ANALYSIS The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, focusing on the language in the statute.15 The language provides “‘the most 11 Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289, 304 ; 795 NW2d 578 (2011).	1	2011–2011
Evans v. GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM neutral mich · 2010 1 sentence 2011Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010).	1	2011–2011
Robinson v. City of Detroit green mich · 2000 1 sentence 2002Considering the tumultuous history governing the construction of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity, beginning with Ross and ending with Rogers , it cannot be seriously maintained that the precedent established by Fiser was clear and uncontroverted, see Robinson, supra at 450, n. 9 , 613 N.W.2d 307 , to such an extent that our Supreme Court's decision in Robinson had the effect of "changing the law" in this area.	1	2002–2002
Gerzeski v. Department of State Highways green mich · 1978 2 sentences 1985We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s claim against the state is barred by governmental immunity, except to the extent plaintiff has pled a valid claim of intentional nuisance, a judicially created exception to governmental immunity._ In Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978), and Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), five justices of the Supreme Court agreed that claims of nuisance per se and intentional nuisance in fact 3 are not barred by governmental immunity. 1985We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s claim against the state is barred by governmental immunity, except to the extent plaintiff has pled a valid claim of intentional nuisance, a judicially created exception to governmental immunity._ In Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978), and Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), five justices of the Supreme Court agreed that claims of nuisance per se and intentional nuisance in fact 3 are not barred by governmental immunity.	1	1985–1985
Rosario v. City of Lansing green mich · 1978 2 sentences 1985We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s claim against the state is barred by governmental immunity, except to the extent plaintiff has pled a valid claim of intentional nuisance, a judicially created exception to governmental immunity._ In Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978), and Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), five justices of the Supreme Court agreed that claims of nuisance per se and intentional nuisance in fact 3 are not barred by governmental immunity. 1985We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s claim against the state is barred by governmental immunity, except to the extent plaintiff has pled a valid claim of intentional nuisance, a judicially created exception to governmental immunity._ In Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978), and Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), five justices of the Supreme Court agreed that claims of nuisance per se and intentional nuisance in fact 3 are not barred by governmental immunity.	1	1985–1985
Grames v. King green michctapp · 1983 2 sentences 1983Grames v King, 123 Mich App 573 ; 332 NW2d 615 (1983). 1983Grames v King, 123 Mich App 573 ; 332 NW2d 615 (1983).	1	1983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407 (23) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401 (20) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1405 (18) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1406 (16) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402 (15) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1413 (11) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417 (10) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6419 (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.151b (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6440 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

MI 27 (1974–2024) WY 5 (1991–2018) PA 3 (2001–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance