governmental function immunity in Michigan

2019Richardson v Jackson Co, 432 Mich 377, 385 ; 443 NW2d 105 (1989).

2019Richardson v Jackson Co, 432 Mich 377, 385 ; 443 NW2d 105 (1989).

1982Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.” In Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183, 199-200 ; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), Justice Moody discussed the dispositive test in determining a "governmental function”: "It is held today that activity conducted in a general hospital operated by a municipality is not a governmental function for immunity purposes.

1982Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.” In Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183, 199-200 ; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), Justice Moody discussed the dispositive test in determining a "governmental function”: "It is held today that activity conducted in a general hospital operated by a municipality is not a governmental function for immunity purposes.

1972No appeal has been taken from the decision, therefore, the City of Lincoln Park cannot be held.” In Maki v East Tawas, 385 Mich 151 (1971), the Michigan Supreme Court declared unconstitutional MCLA 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), which provided a governmental agency engaged in the exercise of a governmental function immunity from tort liability.

1972In Maki v City of East Tawas, 385 Mich 151 (1971), the Michigan Supreme Court declared unconstitutional MCLA 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), which provided a governmental agency engaged in the exercise of a governmental function immunity from tort liability.

2006Co., 454 Mich. 65, 71-72 , 559 N.W.2d 647 (1997). [30] As stated in Wikman v. City of Novi, 413 Mich. 617, 646-647 , 322 N.W.2d 103 (1982), "Generally speaking, an agency exercising quasi-judicial power does not undertake the determination of constitutional questions or possess the power to hold statutes unconstitutional." [1] This was the predecessor to Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29. [2] The majority contends that this line of cases from the Court of Appeals applying the governmental function test is inconsistent with the "reasonable control" standard.

2006Co., 454 Mich. 65, 71-72 , 559 N.W.2d 647 (1997). [30] As stated in Wikman v. City of Novi, 413 Mich. 617, 646-647 , 322 N.W.2d 103 (1982), "Generally speaking, an agency exercising quasi-judicial power does not undertake the determination of constitutional questions or possess the power to hold statutes unconstitutional." [1] This was the predecessor to Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29. [2] The majority contends that this line of cases from the Court of Appeals applying the governmental function test is inconsistent with the "reasonable control" standard.

2006Co., 454 Mich. 65, 71-72 , 559 N.W.2d 647 (1997). [30] As stated in Wikman v. City of Novi, 413 Mich. 617, 646-647 , 322 N.W.2d 103 (1982), "Generally speaking, an agency exercising quasi-judicial power does not undertake the determination of constitutional questions or possess the power to hold statutes unconstitutional." [1] This was the predecessor to Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29. [2] The majority contends that this line of cases from the Court of Appeals applying the governmental function test is inconsistent with the "reasonable control" standard.

2006Co., 454 Mich. 65, 71-72 , 559 N.W.2d 647 (1997). [30] As stated in Wikman v. City of Novi, 413 Mich. 617, 646-647 , 322 N.W.2d 103 (1982), "Generally speaking, an agency exercising quasi-judicial power does not undertake the determination of constitutional questions or possess the power to hold statutes unconstitutional." [1] This was the predecessor to Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29. [2] The majority contends that this line of cases from the Court of Appeals applying the governmental function test is inconsistent with the "reasonable control" standard.

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

2002Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. [5] MCL 691.1413. [6] The act was signed by the Governor after oral arguments were made in this case. [7] Const. 1963, art. 4, § 24. [8] Const. 1963, art. 10, § 2. [9] 383 Mich. 630 , 178 N.W.2d 476 (1970). [10] See Pennoyer v. Saginaw, 8 Mich. 534 (1860); Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383 (1872); Ashley, supra at 296 ; Defer v. Detroit, 67 Mich. 346, 349 , 34 N.W. 680 (1887); Rice v. Flint, 67 Mich. 401, 403 , 34 N.W. 719 (1887); Vanderlip v. G

1990Justice RYAN wrote about the taking rationale in his dissent in Gerzeski v Dep't of State Hwys, 403 Mich 149, 170 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), which is cited in Hadfield, supra, p 165: In [intruding-nuisance] cases the potentially dangerous instrumentality or condition literally moves from government-owned land onto adjacent property.

1990Justice RYAN wrote about the taking rationale in his dissent in Gerzeski v Dep't of State Hwys, 403 Mich 149, 170 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), which is cited in Hadfield, supra, p 165: In [intruding-nuisance] cases the potentially dangerous instrumentality or condition literally moves from government-owned land onto adjacent property.

1990There is nothing in their public expressions to indicate that those who drafted the statute had any such change in mind; indeed, one of them summed the statute up in these terms: "The net effect of Act 170, 1964, is to largely return to municipal corporations the position they enjoyed prior to the decision of the Williams [v Detroit, 364 Mich 231 ; 111 NW2d 1 (1961) (abrogating governmental immunity for municipalities)] case.” This is surely a situation where the legislature should be expected to express an intent to make an important change in the law in words incapable of being misunderstood

1990There is nothing in their public expressions to indicate that those who drafted the statute had any such change in mind; indeed, one of them summed the statute up in these terms: "The net effect of Act 170, 1964, is to largely return to municipal corporations the position they enjoyed prior to the decision of the Williams [v Detroit, 364 Mich 231 ; 111 NW2d 1 (1961) (abrogating governmental immunity for municipalities)] case.” This is surely a situation where the legislature should be expected to express an intent to make an important change in the law in words incapable of being misunderstood

1988As the lead opinion indicates, the cases of Royston v City of Charlotte, 278 Mich 255 ; 270 NW 288 (1936), Trowbridge , and Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp are often cited to support the inclusion of nuisance per se within the exception.

1988As the lead opinion indicates, the cases of Royston v City of Charlotte, 278 Mich 255 ; 270 NW 288 (1936), Trowbridge , and Attorney General ex rel Wyoming Twp are often cited to support the inclusion of nuisance per se within the exception.