applicability of governmental immunity in Michigan

153 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 37 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
Snead v. John Carlo, Inc.green michctapp · 2011 · cited in 24 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2012–2025 2 sentences 2025“Further, the determination regarding the applicability of governmental immunity and a statutory exception to governmental immunity is a question of law that is also subject to review de novo.” Snead v John Carlo Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011). 2025“Further, the determination regarding the applicability of governmental immunity and a statutory exception to governmental immunity is a question of law that is also subject to review de novo.” Snead v John Carlo Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011).	2	24
Morden v. Grand Traverse Countygreen michctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015When no primary caregiver is properly identified under the law, the patient has legal authority to possess up to 12 marijuana plants. 38 Morden v Grand Traverse Co, 275 Mich App 325, 340 ; 738 NW2d 278 (2007) (“Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law . . . .”); Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011) (“[T]he determination regarding the applicability of governmental immunity and a statutory exception to governmental immunity is a question of law .. ..”). 39 Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-395 (emphasis added). 40 Id. at 415 (emphasis adde 2015When no primary caregiver is properly identified under the law, the patient has legal authority to possess up to 12 marijuana plants. 38 Morden v Grand Traverse Co, 275 Mich App 325, 340 ; 738 NW2d 278 (2007) (“Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law . . . .”); Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011) (“[T]he determination regarding the applicability of governmental immunity and a statutory exception to governmental immunity is a question of law .. ..”). 39 Kolanek, 491 Mich at 394-395 (emphasis added). 40 Id. at 415 (emphasis adde	2	2
Tingley v. WARDROP IIgreen michctapp · 2005 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015Roby v Mount Clemens, 274 Mich App 26, 28 ; 731 NW2d 494 240 (2007). 2014*Roby v Mount Clemens, 274 Mich App 26, 28 ; 731 NW2d 494 (2007).	1	3
Nuculovic v. Hillgreen michctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2015–2025 2 sentences 2025See Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 62 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010). 2015Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 61 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010); Herman, 261 Mich App at 143 . 1 In moving for summary disposition, Swager also argued that Ray’s claim must fail because Michigan does not recognize a claim for “educational malpractice.” Additionally, Swager maintained that, because Ray had no memory of events, any claim that Swager caused the accident was merely speculation because it could not be known whether Ray acted as a result of Swager’s purported command and thus Ray could not establish causation under the standard articulated in Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153 ; 516 NW	1	2
People v. Juilletgreen mich · 1991 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
People v. Kolanek; People v. Kinggreen mich · 2012 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	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 (64)

Case	Cited	Years
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights green michctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2025Moraccini v Sterling Hts, 296 Mich App 387, 391 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). 2019“The applicability of governmental immunity and the statutory exceptions to immunity are also reviewed de novo on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).	29	2014–2025
Herman v. City of Detroit green michctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2023“The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal.” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 143 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004). 2023“The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal.” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 143 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004).	25	2005–2023
Seldon v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation green michctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2022STANDARD OF REVIEW “The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that is . . . reviewed de novo.” Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 433 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012). 2022STANDARD OF REVIEW “The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that is . . . reviewed de novo.” Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 433 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012).	15	2014–2023
McLean v. McElhaney green michctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2026This Court also reviews de novo the “the interpretation of a statute” and “the applicability of governmental immunity.” McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich App 592, 596 ; 798 NW2d 29 (2010). 2026This Court also reviews de novo the “the interpretation of a statute” and “the applicability of governmental immunity.” McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich App 592, 596 ; 798 NW2d 29 (2010).	11	2012–2026
Bruce T Wood v. City of Detroit green michctapp · 2018 2 sentences 2026However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428-429 ; 789 NW2d 211 (2010) (citations omitted).] Additionally, “the applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 419 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428-429 ; 789 NW2d 211 (2010) (citations omitted).] Additionally, “the applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 419 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).	10	2021–2026
COUNTY ROAD ASS'N OF MICHIGAN v. Governor green michctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2019County Rd Ass’n of Mich v Governor, 287 Mich App 95, 117-118 ; 782 NW2d 784 (2010). 2019County Rd Ass’n of Mich v Governor, 287 Mich App 95, 117-118 ; 782 NW2d 784 (2010).	7	2011–2019
Beals v. Michigan green mich · 2015 2 sentences 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW “The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo on appeal.” Beals v Mich, 497 Mich 363, 369 ; 871 NW2d 5 (2015) “This Court also reviews de novo a trial court's determination regarding a motion for summary disposition.” Id. 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW “The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo on appeal.” Beals v Mich, 497 Mich 363, 369 ; 871 NW2d 5 (2015) “This Court also reviews de novo a trial court's determination regarding a motion for summary disposition.” Id.	6	2017–2025
Ross v. Consumers Power Co. red mich · 1985 2 sentences 2023The Court clarified that, with respect to intentional torts, the applicability of governmental immunity is governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v Consumers Power Co, 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 2023The Court clarified that, with respect to intentional torts, the applicability of governmental immunity is governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v Consumers Power Co, 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984).	5	1987–2026
Odom v. Wayne County green mich · 2008 2 sentences 2026As an initial matter, although the trial court mentioned the test for determining whether a governmental employee is immune from liability for intentional torts, as explained in Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 472-476 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008), and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 633-634 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), superseded by statute as stated in In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 ; 835 NW2d 545 (2013), defendants did not assert they were entitled to such “good faith immunity” until moving for reconsideration. 2026As an initial matter, although the trial court mentioned the test for determining whether a governmental employee is immune from liability for intentional torts, as explained in Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 472-476 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008), and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 633-634 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), superseded by statute as stated in In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 ; 835 NW2d 545 (2013), defendants did not assert they were entitled to such “good faith immunity” until moving for reconsideration.	3	2017–2026
Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commission green mich · 2007 2 sentences 2018“The applicability of governmental immunity and its statutory exceptions are reviewed de novo,” Russell v City of Detroit, 321 Mich App 628, 631 ; 909 NW2d 507 (2017), as are questions of statutory interpretation, Rowland v Washtenaw Co Road Comm, 477 Mich 197, 202 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007). 2018“The applicability of governmental immunity and its statutory exceptions are reviewed de novo,” Russell v City of Detroit, 321 Mich App 628, 631 ; 909 NW2d 507 (2017), as are questions of statutory interpretation, Rowland v Washtenaw Co Road Comm, 477 Mich 197, 202 ; 731 NW2d 41 (2007).	3	2018–2024
Maiden v. Rozwood green mich · 1999 2 sentences 2017Gross negligence has also “been characterized as a willful disregard of safety measures and a singular disregard for substantial risks.” Oliver v Smith, 290 Mich App 678, 685 ; 810 NW2d 57 (2010). “[E]vidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 122 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 2017Gross negligence has also “been characterized as a willful disregard of safety measures and a singular disregard for substantial risks.” Oliver v Smith, 290 Mich App 678, 685 ; 810 NW2d 57 (2010). “[E]vidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 122 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).	3	2014–2017
Dybata v. Wayne County green michctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2017Dybata v Wayne Co, 287 Mich App 635, 638 ; 791 NW2d 499 (2010). 2017Dybata v Wayne Co, 287 Mich App 635, 638 ; 791 NW2d 499 (2010).	3	2016–2017
Roby v. City of Mount Clemens green michctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2015Roby v Mount Clemens, 274 Mich App 26, 28 ; 731 NW2d 494 240 (2007). 2014*Roby v Mount Clemens, 274 Mich App 26, 28 ; 731 NW2d 494 (2007).	3	2014–2015
Dextrom v. Wexford County green michctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2026However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428-429 ; 789 NW2d 211 (2010) (citations omitted).] Additionally, “the applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 419 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich App 406, 428-429 ; 789 NW2d 211 (2010) (citations omitted).] Additionally, “the applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 419 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).	2	2023–2026
In Re Hansen green mich · 2010 2 sentences 2025See Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 62 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010). 2015Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58, 61 ; 783 NW2d 124 (2010); Herman, 261 Mich App at 143 . 1 In moving for summary disposition, Swager also argued that Ray’s claim must fail because Michigan does not recognize a claim for “educational malpractice.” Additionally, Swager maintained that, because Ray had no memory of events, any claim that Swager caused the accident was merely speculation because it could not be known whether Ray acted as a result of Swager’s purported command and thus Ray could not establish causation under the standard articulated in Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153 ; 516 NW	2	2015–2025
Brecht v. Hendry green michctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2022Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 459 ; 821 NW2d 88 (2012); Brecht v Hendry, 297 Mich App 732, 736 ; 825 NW2d 110 (2012); McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich App 592, 596 ; 798 NW2d 29 (2010). 2022Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 459 ; 821 NW2d 88 (2012); Brecht v Hendry, 297 Mich App 732, 736 ; 825 NW2d 110 (2012); McLean v McElhaney, 289 Mich App 592, 596 ; 798 NW2d 29 (2010).	2	2021–2022
Plunkett v. Department of Transportation green michctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2020Plunkett v Dep’t of Transp, 286 Mich App 168, 180 ; 779 NW2d 263 (2009). 2020Plunkett v Dep’t of Transp, 286 Mich App 168, 180 ; 779 NW2d 263 (2009).	2	2015–2020
Willett v. Waterford Charter Township green michctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2018Id. 2018Id.	2	2018–2018
Oliver v. Smith green michctapp · 2010 2 sentences 2017Gross negligence has also “been characterized as a willful disregard of safety measures and a singular disregard for substantial risks.” Oliver v Smith, 290 Mich App 678, 685 ; 810 NW2d 57 (2010). “[E]vidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 122 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 2017Gross negligence has also “been characterized as a willful disregard of safety measures and a singular disregard for substantial risks.” Oliver v Smith, 290 Mich App 678, 685 ; 810 NW2d 57 (2010). “[E]vidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 122 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).	2	2017–2017
Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club green michctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2017Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 279 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009). 2017Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 279 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009).	2	2017–2017
Oliver v. Smith green michctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2017“The determination whether a governmental employee's conduct constituted gross negligence under MCL 691.1407 is generally a question of fact, but, if reasonable minds could not differ, a court may grant summary disposition.” Oliver v Smith, 269 Mich App 560, 563 ; 715 NW2d 314 (2006). 2017“The determination whether a governmental employee's conduct constituted gross negligence under MCL 691.1407 is generally a question of fact, but, if reasonable minds could not differ, a court may grant summary disposition.” Oliver v Smith, 269 Mich App 560, 563 ; 715 NW2d 314 (2006).	2	2017–2017
People v. Bowman green mich · 2009 2 sentences 2017Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 279 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009). 2017Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 279 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009).	2	2017–2017
Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC green mich · 2011 2 sentences 2016A plaintiff's description of the nature of the defect may be deemed to substantially comply with the statute 3 This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008), and the applicability of governmental immunity, Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011). -3- when coupled with the specific description of the location, time and nature of injuries. 2016A plaintiff's description of the nature of the defect may be deemed to substantially comply with the statute 3 This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008), and the applicability of governmental immunity, Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011). -3- when coupled with the specific description of the location, time and nature of injuries.	2	2016–2016
Estes v. Titus green mich · 2008 2 sentences 2016A plaintiff's description of the nature of the defect may be deemed to substantially comply with the statute 3 This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008), and the applicability of governmental immunity, Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011). -3- when coupled with the specific description of the location, time and nature of injuries. 2016A plaintiff's description of the nature of the defect may be deemed to substantially comply with the statute 3 This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008), and the applicability of governmental immunity, Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 354 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011). -3- when coupled with the specific description of the location, time and nature of injuries.	2	2016–2016
Briggs v. Oakland County green michctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2015“The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law, which we also review de novo.” Briggs v Oakland Co, 276 Mich App 369, 371 ; 742 NW2d 136 (2007). 2015“The applicability of governmental immunity is a question of law, which we also review de novo.” Briggs v Oakland Co, 276 Mich App 369, 371 ; 742 NW2d 136 (2007).	2	2015–2015
Baker v. Waste Management of Michigan, Inc green michctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2004Baker v Waste Mgt of Michigan, Inc, 208 Mich App 602, 605 ; 528 NW2d 835 (1995). 2004Baker v Waste Mgt of Michigan, Inc, 208 Mich App 602, 605 ; 528 NW2d 835 (1995).	2	1999–2004
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools green mich · 1979	2	1979–1980
in Re Bradley Estate green mich · 2013	1	2026–2026
Hoffner v. Lanctoe green mich · 2012	1	2022–2022
Ali Bazzi v. Sentinel Insurance Company green mich · 2018	1	2019–2019
Lawrence Russell v. City of Detroit green michctapp · 2017	1	2018–2018
Caron v. Cranbrook Educational Community green michctapp · 2012	1	2016–2016
Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of Education green mich · 2010	1	2016–2016
People v. Mungo green mich · 2009	1	2016–2016
Michigan Chiropractic Council v. Commissioner of the Office of Financial & Insurance Services green mich · 2006	1	2016–2016
Wayne County v. Hathcock green mich · 2004	1	2016–2016
Stabley v. Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Park Authority green michctapp · 1998	1	2016–2016
People v. Jones green michctapp · 2013	1	2015–2015
Skinner v. Square D Co. green mich · 1994	1	2015–2015
People v. Jamieson green mich · 1990	1	2015–2015

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407 (118) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401 (101) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1405 (47) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402 (33) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417 (24) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1406 (20) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1413 (20) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1404 (19) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3135 (16) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.1 (12) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402a (12) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1416 (12)

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 153 (1979–2026) CT 2 (1999–2011) MN 2 (2009–2009)

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