question of governmental immunity (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

question of governmental immunity in Michigan

7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 1 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Cebreco v. Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts, Incgreen
michctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Cebreco, 219 Mich App at 355-356, 361-362 .

11
Galli v. Kirkebygreen
mich · 1976 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985"In short, the test of whether a governmental agency can claim immunity under the statute is whether the specific activity alleged against the governmental defendant falls within `the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.'" Galli v Kirkeby, supra, p 536 (opinion of WILLIAMS, J.) (emphasis added). [28] Almost every jurisdiction has held that judicial and legislative activities are absolutely immune.

1985"In short, the test of whether a governmental agency can claim immunity under the statute is whether the speciñc activity alleged against the governmental defendant falls within 'the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.’ ” Galli v Kirkeby, supra, p 536 (opinion of Williams, J.) (emphasis added).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
McDowell v. City of Detroit neutral
michctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2005In McDowell v Detroit, 264 Mich App 337, 343-345 ; 690 NW2d 513 (2004), lv pending, this Court agreed with Walsh that issues reviewable on cross-appeal are not similarly limited by the court rule, but assumed, in obiter dictum, that, in order for this Court to consider issues other than the question of governmental immunity raised on direct appeal, the defendant would also have to file an application for leave to appeal.

2005In McDowell v Detroit, 264 Mich App 337, 343-345 ; 690 NW2d 513 (2004), lv pending, this Court agreed with Walsh that issues reviewable on cross-appeal are not similarly limited by the court rule, but assumed, in obiter dictum, that, in order for this Court to consider issues other than the question of governmental immunity raised on direct appeal, the defendant would also have to file an application for leave to appeal.

22005–2005
CMI International, Inc. v. Intermet International Corp. green
michctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2022No basis for reversal is apparent.7 7 Even disregarding the question of governmental immunity, plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that in CMI Int’l, Inc v Intermet Int’l Corp, 251 Mich App 125, 131 ; 649 NW2d 808 (2002), the Court stated: [O]ne who alleges tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship must allege the intentional doing of a per se wrongful act or the doing of a lawful act with malice and unjustified in law for the purpose of invading the contractual rights or business relationship of another. [Quotation marks and citation omitted.] -11- Affirmed. /s/

2022No basis for reversal is apparent.7 7 Even disregarding the question of governmental immunity, plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that in CMI Int’l, Inc v Intermet Int’l Corp, 251 Mich App 125, 131 ; 649 NW2d 808 (2002), the Court stated: [O]ne who alleges tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship must allege the intentional doing of a per se wrongful act or the doing of a lawful act with malice and unjustified in law for the purpose of invading the contractual rights or business relationship of another. [Quotation marks and citation omitted.] -11- Affirmed. /s/

12022–2022
Odom v. Wayne County green
mich · 2008
1 sentence

2014Id. at 481 .

12014–2014
Parker v. City of Highland Park green
mich · 1978
2 sentences

1985At that time controlling law on the question of governmental immunity for state operated mental and medical hospitals was found in Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183 ; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), and Perry v Kalamazoo State Hospital, 404 Mich 205 ; 273 NW2d 421 (1978).

1985At that time controlling law on the question of governmental immunity for state operated mental and medical hospitals was found in Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183 ; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), and Perry v Kalamazoo State Hospital, 404 Mich 205 ; 273 NW2d 421 (1978).

11985–1985
Perry v. Kalamazoo State Hospital green
mich · 1978
2 sentences

1985At that time controlling law on the question of governmental immunity for state operated mental and medical hospitals was found in Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183 ; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), and Perry v Kalamazoo State Hospital, 404 Mich 205 ; 273 NW2d 421 (1978).

1985At that time controlling law on the question of governmental immunity for state operated mental and medical hospitals was found in Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183 ; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), and Perry v Kalamazoo State Hospital, 404 Mich 205 ; 273 NW2d 421 (1978).

11985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1402 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1406 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1407 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1413 (3)

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 7 (1985–2022) NC 6 (1958–2026) CA 5 (1976–2013) TX 5 (1973–2017) CT 4 (1949–2004) LA 4 (1958–1970) FL 3 (1991–2009) WY 3 (1980–2006) TN 3 (1961–1998) MD 2 (1985–1988) PA 2 (1949–2014) OH 2 (1973–1974) KS 2 (1976–1977) WI 2 (2005–2005)

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