9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.red2 sentences2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa 2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Department of State Highwaysgreen2 sentences1983See Thomas v State Highway Dep’t, 398 Mich 1, 9, fn 3 ; 247 NW2d 530 (1976). 1983See Thomas v State Highway Dep’t, 398 Mich 1, 9, fn 3 ; 247 NW2d 530 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heather Lynn Hannay v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2017Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014). 2017Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa 2014This provision has remained unchanged from its original phrasing when enacted as part of the GTLA in 1964.35 The heart of our inquiry is the interpretation of the phrase “liable for bodily injury,” which contains two key components: (1) “liable for” and (2) “bodily injury.” 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public- building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.14 | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Perry
green
2 sentences2014See also MCL 691.1407(1) and Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 593-608 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984) (providing a detailed histoiy of sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, and the GTLA). 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the puhlic-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewa 2014This provision has remained unchanged from its original phrasing when enacted as part of the GTLA in 1964.35 The heart of our inquiry is the interpretation of the phrase “liable for bodily injury,” which contains two key components: (1) “liable for” and (2) “bodily injury.” 34 The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity contained within the GTLA precede and follow the general grant of immunity in MCL 691.1407(1): “the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public- building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.14 | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Goodrich v. County of Kalamazoo
green
2 sentences1990However, they do contend that the highway’s shoulder does not comprise that part of the improved portion of the highway "designed for vehicular travel.” Framed this way, the crucial issue involves whether the paved shoulder of the road is "designed for vehicular travel.” The dissent cites Goodrich v Kalamazoo, 304 Mich 442 ; 8 NW2d 130 (1943), a case decided under a predecessor statute in support of the argument that the Legislature in enacting §2 of the current statute did not intend the shoulder of the road to be excepted from the statute’s general grant of immunity. 1990However, they do contend that the highway’s shoulder does not comprise that part of the improved portion of the highway "designed for vehicular travel.” Framed this way, the crucial issue involves whether the paved shoulder of the road is "designed for vehicular travel.” The dissent cites Goodrich v Kalamazoo, 304 Mich 442 ; 8 NW2d 130 (1943), a case decided under a predecessor statute in support of the argument that the Legislature in enacting §2 of the current statute did not intend the shoulder of the road to be excepted from the statute’s general grant of immunity. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools
green
2 sentences1987Bush v Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich 716, 731-732 ; 275 NW2d 268 (1979). 1987Bush v Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich 716, 731-732 ; 275 NW2d 268 (1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Schmit v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences1986Schmit v Detroit, 88 Mich App 22 ; 276 NW2d 506 (1979). 1986Schmit v Detroit, 88 Mich App 22 ; 276 NW2d 506 (1979). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pichette v. Manistique Public Schools
green
2 sentences1979As stated in Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268, 285 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978) (Fitzgerald, J.), "in providing for the three exceptions to the general grant of immunity contained in MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), the Legislature intended to protect the general public from injury by imposing upon governmental agencies the duty to maintain safe public places, whether such places are public highways or public buildings.” (Emphasis supplied.) To be sure, the lack of certain safety devices did not render the classroom defective per se; it is ordinarily unnecessary to install laboratory s 1979As stated in Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268, 285 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978) (Fitzgerald, J.), "in providing for the three exceptions to the general grant of immunity contained in MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), the Legislature intended to protect the general public from injury by imposing upon governmental agencies the duty to maintain safe public places, whether such places are public highways or public buildings.” (Emphasis supplied.) To be sure, the lack of certain safety devices did not render the classroom defective per se; it is ordinarily unnecessary to install laboratory s | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.