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.
26 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tarlea v. Crabtreegreen2 sentences2021“Accordingly, when no reasonable person could find that a governmental employee’s conduct was grossly negligent, our policy favors a court’s timely grant of summary disposition to afford that employee the fullest protection of the GTLA immunity provision by sparing the employee the expense of an unnecessary trial.” Id. 2021“Accordingly, when no reasonable person could find that a governmental employee’s conduct was grossly negligent, our policy favors a court’s timely grant of summary disposition to afford that employee the fullest protection of the GTLA immunity provision by sparing the employee the expense of an unnecessary trial.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Beals v. Michigangreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Beals v Michigan, 497 Mich 363, 365-366, 371-378 ; 871 NW2d 5 (2015) (upholding immunity of a lifeguard after finding that the lifeguard’s failure to intervene was not “the proximate cause” of the plaintiff’s drowning death), and Tarlea, 263 Mich App at 92-93 (upholding GTLA immunity after finding that a high school football coach’s alleged failure to prevent the plaintiff from participating in team exercises was not the most immediate, proximate cause of the plaintiff’s heatstroke and subsequent death, which might have been caused by a number of factors). -5- Based on the evidence 2016See, e.g., Beals v Michigan, 497 Mich 363, 365-366, 371-378 ; 871 NW2d 5 (2015) (upholding immunity of a lifeguard after finding that the lifeguard’s failure to intervene was not “the proximate cause” of the plaintiff’s drowning death), and Tarlea, 263 Mich App at 92-93 (upholding GTLA immunity after finding that a high school football coach’s alleged failure to prevent the plaintiff from participating in team exercises was not the most immediate, proximate cause of the plaintiff’s heatstroke and subsequent death, which might have been caused by a number of factors). -5- Based on the evidence | 1 | 2 |
National Copper Co. v. Minnesota Mining Co.green2 sentences2023See also Nat’l Copper Co v Minnesota Min Co, 57 Mich 83, 93 ; 23 NW 781 (1885) (“[D]amage alone does not give a right of action there must be a concurrence of wrong and damage.”). 2023See also Nat’l Copper Co v Minnesota Min Co, 57 Mich 83, 93 ; 23 NW 781 (1885) (“[D]amage alone does not give a right of action there must be a concurrence of wrong and damage.”). | 1 | 1 |
Love v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2023MCL 691.1407(2); see also Love v Detroit, 270 Mich App 563, 565 ; 716 NW2d 604 (2006). “ ‘Gross negligence’ means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” MCL 691.1407(8)(a). 2023MCL 691.1407(2); see also Love v Detroit, 270 Mich App 563, 565 ; 716 NW2d 604 (2006). “ ‘Gross negligence’ means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” MCL 691.1407(8)(a). | 1 | 1 |
Lash v. City of Traverse Citygreen2 sentences2019In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich at 389 n 53. -5- injury caused by the noncontractual civil wrong, then the action, no matter how it is labeled, seeks to impose tort liability and the GTLA is applicable. [Id. at 388- 389.] Furthermore, a plaintiff may not maintain a private cause of action for money damages against a governmental entity premised on the violation of a statute if that statute does not provide for such a cause of action because the GTLA provides immunity from tort liability “unless the Legislature has pulled back the veil of immunity and allowed suit by citizens against the governm 2019In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich at 389 n 53. -5- injury caused by the noncontractual civil wrong, then the action, no matter how it is labeled, seeks to impose tort liability and the GTLA is applicable. [Id. at 388- 389.] Furthermore, a plaintiff may not maintain a private cause of action for money damages against a governmental entity premised on the violation of a statute if that statute does not provide for such a cause of action because the GTLA provides immunity from tort liability “unless the Legislature has pulled back the veil of immunity and allowed suit by citizens against the governm | 1 | 1 |
MacK v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2015See Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 195 ; 649 NW2d 47 (2002). 2015See Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 195 ; 649 NW2d 47 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.red2 sentences2013Instead, consistent with our holding in this case, Ross merely recognized that the GTLA does not bar a properly pleaded contract claim.47 45 Ross, 420 Mich at 647 . 46 Id. at 647-648 (emphasis added). 47 Id. at 647-648 ; id. at 693-694 (opinion by LEVIN, J.) (“The language of [MCL 691.1407(1)], however, speaks only to immunity from tort liability; it does not grant immunity from contract claims.”). 17 In addition, our holding clarifies that Ross’s pronouncement, that “non-tort cause[s] of action” are not barred by the GTLA, should not be interpreted as limiting the GTLA’s application to only t 2013Instead, consistent with our holding in this case, Ross merely recognized that the GTLA does not bar a properly pleaded contract claim.47 45 Ross, 420 Mich at 647 . 46 Id. at 647-648 (emphasis added). 47 Id. at 647-648 ; id. at 693-694 (opinion by LEVIN, J.) (“The language of [MCL 691.1407(1)], however, speaks only to immunity from tort liability; it does not grant immunity from contract claims.”). 17 In addition, our holding clarifies that Ross’s pronouncement, that “non-tort cause[s] of action” are not barred by the GTLA, should not be interpreted as limiting the GTLA’s application to only t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maiden v. Rozwood
green
2 sentences2023Plaintiff also argued that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied tort immunity under the governmental tort liability act (the GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., even though defendant’s leasing of the commercial space to plaintiff was a proprietary function excluded from the GTLA’s immunity, see MCL 691.1413. 9 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 10 Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290, 296 ; 871 NW2d 129 (2015). 11 Christie v Wayne State Univ, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 162706). 4 provision, as it failed to file, in the office of the clerk of 2023Plaintiff also argued that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied tort immunity under the governmental tort liability act (the GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., even though defendant’s leasing of the commercial space to plaintiff was a proprietary function excluded from the GTLA’s immunity, see MCL 691.1413. 9 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 10 Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290, 296 ; 871 NW2d 129 (2015). 11 Christie v Wayne State Univ, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 162706). 4 provision, as it failed to file, in the office of the clerk of | 3 | 2013–2023 |
in Re Bradley Estate
green
2 sentences2023Because plaintiffs’ cause of action for City defendants’ alleged violation of MCL 328.218(1) was premised on a civil wrong independent of the underlying contract, the GTLA will bar plaintiffs’ claim “[i]f the action permits an award of damages to a private party as compensation for an injury caused by the noncontractual civil wrong.” In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich at 389 . 2019Accordingly, “the GTLA does not bar a properly pleaded contract claim.” Id. at 387 . | 3 | 2016–2023 |
Dean v. Childs
red
2 sentences2025Id., overruling Dean v Childs, 474 Mich 914 ; 705 NW2d 344 (2004). 2025Id., overruling Dean v Childs, 474 Mich 914 ; 705 NW2d 344 (2004). | 2 | 2017–2025 |
Jones v. Bitner
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 68 . 2024Id. at 68 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Michelle Renee Fairley v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2023Plaintiff also argued that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied tort immunity under the governmental tort liability act (the GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., even though defendant’s leasing of the commercial space to plaintiff was a proprietary function excluded from the GTLA’s immunity, see MCL 691.1413. 9 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 10 Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290, 296 ; 871 NW2d 129 (2015). 11 Christie v Wayne State Univ, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 162706). 4 provision, as it failed to file, in the office of the clerk of 2023Plaintiff also argued that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied tort immunity under the governmental tort liability act (the GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., even though defendant’s leasing of the commercial space to plaintiff was a proprietary function excluded from the GTLA’s immunity, see MCL 691.1413. 9 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 10 Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290, 296 ; 871 NW2d 129 (2015). 11 Christie v Wayne State Univ, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 162706). 4 provision, as it failed to file, in the office of the clerk of | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Odom v. Wayne County
green
2 sentences2017MCL 691.1407(2); Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). 2017MCL 691.1407(2); Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights
green
2 sentences2025Moraccini v Sterling Hts, 296 Mich App 387, 392 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). 2025Moraccini v Sterling Hts, 296 Mich App 387, 392 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Diamond v. Witherspoon
green
2 sentences2023In Diamond v Witherspoon, 265 Mich App 673 ; 696 NW2d 770 (2005), this Court again held that the GTLA was not a defense to a claim brought under the ELCRA. 2023In Diamond v Witherspoon, 265 Mich App 673 ; 696 NW2d 770 (2005), this Court again held that the GTLA was not a defense to a claim brought under the ELCRA. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hamed v. Wayne County
green
1 sentence2023The Hamed Court identified the difference between its holding and the GTLA and clarified that “[a] school district, for example, could not be vicariously liable in tort for a teacher’s sexual molestation of a student because the GTLA would bar the claim.” Id. at 29 n 74. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Smith v. Department of Public Health
green
2 sentences2021In support, they cite several Court of Appeals cases decided prior to 1984.15 However, after these cases were decided, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 544 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which it unambiguously stated that “[t]here is no ‘intentional tort’ exception to governmental immunity.” See also Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 ; 869 NW2d 635 (2015); Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992). 2021In support, they cite several Court of Appeals cases decided prior to 1984.15 However, after these cases were decided, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 544 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which it unambiguously stated that “[t]here is no ‘intentional tort’ exception to governmental immunity.” See also Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 ; 869 NW2d 635 (2015); Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harrison v. Director of Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2021In support, they cite several Court of Appeals cases decided prior to 1984.15 However, after these cases were decided, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 544 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which it unambiguously stated that “[t]here is no ‘intentional tort’ exception to governmental immunity.” See also Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 ; 869 NW2d 635 (2015); Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992). 2021In support, they cite several Court of Appeals cases decided prior to 1984.15 However, after these cases were decided, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 544 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which it unambiguously stated that “[t]here is no ‘intentional tort’ exception to governmental immunity.” See also Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 ; 869 NW2d 635 (2015); Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Genesee County Drain Commissioner v. Genesee County
green
1 sentence2021In support, they cite several Court of Appeals cases decided prior to 1984.15 However, after these cases were decided, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 544 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which it unambiguously stated that “[t]here is no ‘intentional tort’ exception to governmental immunity.” See also Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 ; 869 NW2d 635 (2015); Harrison v Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 194 Mich App 446, 460 ; 487 NW2d 799 (1992). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Genesee County Drain Commissioner v. Genesee County
green
1 sentence2019On appeal, the Court of Appeals, SAWYER, P.J., and SERVITTO and RIORDAN, JJ., affirmed the denial, reasoning that the GTLA did not apply because the unjust- enrichment claim ultimately involved contract liability, not tort liability. 321 Mich App 74 (2017). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Norris v. City of Lincoln Park Police Officers
green
2 sentences2015However, if the wrong is not premised on a breach of contractual duty, but rather is premised on some other civil wrong, i.e., some other breach of a legal duty, then the GTLA might apply to bar the claim. [Id. at 389.] “A party’s choice of label for a cause of action is not dispositive.” Norris v Lincoln Park Police Officers, 292 Mich App 574, 584 ; 808 NW2d 578 (2011). 2015However, if the wrong is not premised on a breach of contractual duty, but rather is premised on some other civil wrong, i.e., some other breach of a legal duty, then the GTLA might apply to bar the claim. [Id. at 389.] “A party’s choice of label for a cause of action is not dispositive.” Norris v Lincoln Park Police Officers, 292 Mich App 574, 584 ; 808 NW2d 578 (2011). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Linton v. Arenac County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2014As this Court explained in Linton, 273 Mich App at 116 , “if the Legislature had intended that the exception only apply to sewage, then it would. .. not have made a point of specifically clarifying that the exception applies to ‘a storm water drain system.’ ” To interpret the statute otherwise would render nugatory the phrase “and includes a storm water drain system.” Defendant’s relief storm sewer system is “a storm water drain system under the jurisdiction and control of a governmental agency” and, thus, it is a sewage disposal system. 2014As this Court explained in Linton, 273 Mich App at 116 , “if the Legislature had intended that the exception only apply to sewage, then it would. .. not have made a point of specifically clarifying that the exception applies to ‘a storm water drain system.’ ” To interpret the statute otherwise would render nugatory the phrase “and includes a storm water drain system.” Defendant’s relief storm sewer system is “a storm water drain system under the jurisdiction and control of a governmental agency” and, thus, it is a sewage disposal system. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Tate v. City of Grand Rapids
green
1 sentence2012Tate, 256 Mich App at 657 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Evans v. GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
neutral
1 sentence2011Thus, it held that the highway exception does not apply to plaintiff’s suit.5 We granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.6 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL BACKGROUND We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.7 This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.8 3 MCL 691.1402(1). 4 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2010 (Docket No. 289644). 5 Id. at 3 . 6 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). 7 Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 64 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
University of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins Agency
green
2 sentences2011Thus, it held that the highway exception does not apply to plaintiff’s suit.5 We granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.6 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL BACKGROUND We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.7 This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.8 3 MCL 691.1402(1). 4 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2010 (Docket No. 289644). 5 Id. at 3 . 6 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). 7 Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 64 2011Thus, it held that the highway exception does not apply to plaintiff’s suit.5 We granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.6 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL BACKGROUND We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.7 This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.8 3 MCL 691.1402(1). 4 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2010 (Docket No. 289644). 5 Id. at 3 . 6 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). 7 Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 64 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Shay v. Aldrich
green
2 sentences2011Thus, it held that the highway exception does not apply to plaintiff’s suit.5 We granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.6 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL BACKGROUND We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.7 This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.8 3 MCL 691.1402(1). 4 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2010 (Docket No. 289644). 5 Id. at 3 . 6 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). 7 Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 64 2011Thus, it held that the highway exception does not apply to plaintiff’s suit.5 We granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.6 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL BACKGROUND We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.7 This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.8 3 MCL 691.1402(1). 4 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2010 (Docket No. 289644). 5 Id. at 3 . 6 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). 7 Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 64 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Robinson v. City of Lansing
green
1 sentence2011Thus, it held that the highway exception does not apply to plaintiff’s suit.5 We granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal.6 STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL BACKGROUND We review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition.7 This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which we also review de novo.8 3 MCL 691.1402(1). 4 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2010 (Docket No. 289644). 5 Id. at 3 . 6 Duffy v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 488 Mich 861 (2010). 7 Shay v Aldrich, 487 Mich 64 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Burnett v. City of Adrian
green
1 sentence1994B WILFUL MISCONDUCT The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) because the plaintiff failed to allege wilful and wanton misconduct as defined in Burnett, supra. While it is true that we have decided that the wilful and wanton misconduct standard will no longer be applied to allegations of wilful misconduct under the emsa, a remand to the trial court is unnecessary. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.
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.