plaintiff to pursue claim in Michigan

2018“The existence and scope of governmental immunity was solely a creation of the courts until the Legislature enacted the GTLA in 1964, which codified several exceptions to governmental immunity that permit a plaintiff to pursue a claim against a governmental agency.” Duffy, 490 Mich at 204 .

2018“The existence and scope of governmental immunity was solely a creation of the courts until the Legislature enacted the GTLA in 1964, which codified several exceptions to governmental immunity that permit a plaintiff to pursue a claim against a governmental agency.” Duffy, 490 Mich at 204 .

2024Nielsen v Barnett, 440 Mich 1, 8 ; 485 NW2d 666 (1992), citing Lothian v Detroit, 414 Mich 160, 165 ; 324 NW2d 9 (1982).

2024Nielsen v Barnett, 440 Mich 1, 8 ; 485 NW2d 666 (1992), citing Lothian v Detroit, 414 Mich 160, 165 ; 324 NW2d 9 (1982).

2003In Nielsen v Barnett, 440 Mich 1, 8-9 ; 485 NW2d 666 (1992), this Court noted the various policies underlying statutes of limitations: By enacting a statute of limitations, the Legislature determines the reasonable period of time given to a plaintiff to pursue a claim.

2003In Nielsen v Barnett, 440 Mich 1, 8-9 ; 485 NW2d 666 (1992), this Court noted the various policies underlying statutes of limitations: By enacting a statute of limitations, the Legislature determines the reasonable period of time given to a plaintiff to pursue a claim.

2024The policy reasons behind statutes of limitations include: the prompt recovery of damages, penalizing plaintiffs who are not industrious in pursuing claims, security against stale demands, relieving defendants’ fear of litigation, prevention of fraudulent claims, and a remedy for general inconveniences resulting from delay.” [Gladych, 468 Mich at 600 , quoting Nielsen v Barnett, 440 Mich 1, 8-9 ; 485 NW2d 666 (1992) (citations omitted in Gladych).] Statutes of limitations have their basis in more than just “court administration,” and disregarding or substantively amending a statute of limitati

2020The policy reasons behind statutes of limitations include: the prompt recovery of damages, penalizing plaintiffs who are not industrious in pursuing claims, security against stale demands, relieving defendants’ fear of litigation, prevention of fraudulent claims, and a remedy for general inconveniences resulting from delay. . . . [Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich 594, 708-709 ; 664 NW2d 705 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] For purposes of this appeal, we need not determine the statute of limitations that is applicable to each of the counts of plaintiffs’ complaint.

2013Further, “[t]he applicability of governmental immunity and the statutory exceptions to immunity are also reviewed de novo on appeal.” Moraccini v Sterling Hts, 296 Mich App 387, 391 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). 1 Under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” As this Court explained in Petipren, 294 Mich App at 425 : “The existence and scope of governmental immunity was solely a creation of

2013Further, “[t]he applicability of governmental immunity and the statutory exceptions to immunity are also reviewed de novo on appeal.” Moraccini v Sterling Hts, 296 Mich App 387, 391 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). 1 Under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” As this Court explained in Petipren, 294 Mich App at 425 : “The existence and scope of governmental immunity was solely a creation of

2013Further, “[t]he applicability of governmental immunity and the statutory exceptions to immunity are also reviewed de novo on appeal.” Moraccini v Sterling Hts, 296 Mich App 387, 391 ; 822 NW2d 799 (2012). 1 Under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” As this Court explained in Petipren, 294 Mich App at 425 : “The existence and scope of governmental immunity was solely a creation of

2003Whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of M.C.L. § 691.1405 presents a question of statutory interpretation, Stanton, supra at 615 , 647 N.W.2d 508 , and is, therefore, a question of law for the court.