actionable claim in Michigan

1985McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976).

1985McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976).

2025To successfully assert a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided.” [Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc, 327 Mich App 203 , 226-227; 933 NW2d 363 (2019), quoting Novak v Nationwide Mut Ins Co, 235 Mich App 675, 686-687 ; 599 NW2d 546 (1999).] “A prom

2025To successfully assert a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided.” [Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc, 327 Mich App 203 , 226-227; 933 NW2d 363 (2019), quoting Novak v Nationwide Mut Ins Co, 235 Mich App 675, 686-687 ; 599 NW2d 546 (1999).] “A prom

2025See Mitchell v Cole, 176 Mich App 200, 210 ; 439 NW2d 319 (1989); Griffin, 403 US at 102-103 .3 For all these reasons, plaintiff failed to plead an actionable claim under 42 USC 1985(3), so the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(8).

2025See Mitchell v Cole, 176 Mich App 200, 210 ; 439 NW2d 319 (1989); Griffin, 403 US at 102-103 .3 For all these reasons, plaintiff failed to plead an actionable claim under 42 USC 1985(3), so the trial court properly granted summary disposition in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(8).

2020A viable claim for unjust enrichment requires the complaining party to show that the other party retained a benefit from the complaining party.98 In concluding that the plaintiff in Dean stated an actionable claim for unjust enrichment, this Court did not rely on any statutory right that the plaintiff 97 Dean, 399 Mich at 94-95 . 98 Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 47-48 ; 790 NW2d 260 (2010) (“Unjust enrichment is defined as the unjust retention of money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.

2020A viable claim for unjust enrichment requires the complaining party to show that the other party retained a benefit from the complaining party.98 In concluding that the plaintiff in Dean stated an actionable claim for unjust enrichment, this Court did not rely on any statutory right that the plaintiff 97 Dean, 399 Mich at 94-95 . 98 Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 47-48 ; 790 NW2d 260 (2010) (“Unjust enrichment is defined as the unjust retention of money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.

2018In Barnard, this Court found that the plaintiff had stated an actionable claim for fraud by contending that the defendant either knew a property settlement would have adverse tax consequences but represented otherwise to the plaintiff, or never investigated the tax consequences of the settlement “notwithstanding explicit representations to the contrary.” Id. at 533-534 .

2018In Barnard, this Court found that the plaintiff had stated an actionable claim for fraud by contending that the defendant either knew a property settlement would have adverse tax consequences but represented otherwise to the plaintiff, or never investigated the tax consequences of the settlement “notwithstanding explicit representations to the contrary.” Id. at 533-534 .

2018Gohl, 836 F3d at 678 .

2018Gohl, 836 F3d at 678 .

2018Summary disposition is properly granted under MCR 2.116(C)(8) when “[t]he opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” “A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the allegations of the pleadings alone.” Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663, 672 ; 719 NW2d 1 (2006).

2018Summary disposition is properly granted under MCR 2.116(C)(8) when “[t]he opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” “A motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the allegations of the pleadings alone.” Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663, 672 ; 719 NW2d 1 (2006).

2017Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998).

2017Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998).

2015Butler v Wayne Co Sheriff’s Dep’t, 75 Mich App 202, 203 ; 255 NW2d 7 (1977). -9-

2015Butler v Wayne Co Sheriff’s Dep’t, 75 Mich App 202, 203 ; 255 NW2d 7 (1977). -9-

2001In any event, we are not convinced that the inadvertent disclosure of some of the complaint files amounts to a private citizen’s relinquishment of their right to privacy. “ ‘[A]n individual’s interest in controlling the dissemination of information of personal matters does not dissolve simply because that information may be available to the public in some form.’ ” Detroit Free Press, supra at 227, n 6, quoting United States Dep’t of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 US 487, 500 ; 114 S Ct 1006 ; 127 L Ed 2d 325 (1994). 6 Plaintiff argues that under this portion of the privacy ex

2001In any event, we are not convinced that the inadvertent disclosure of some of the complaint files amounts to a private citizen’s relinquishment of their right to privacy. “ ‘[A]n individual’s interest in controlling the dissemination of information of personal matters does not dissolve simply because that information may be available to the public in some form.’ ” Detroit Free Press, supra at 227, n 6, quoting United States Dep’t of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 US 487, 500 ; 114 S Ct 1006 ; 127 L Ed 2d 325 (1994). 6 Plaintiff argues that under this portion of the privacy ex

1993The Court, sua sponte, rejected its prior utilization of a reasonable person standard to determine whether a hostile work environment exists, and ruled: [A] female plaintiff states an actionable claim for sex discrimination caused by hostile-environment sexual harassment under the state Civil Rights Act where she alleges conduct of a sexual nature that a reasonable woman would consider to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment by substantially interfering with her employment or by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment environment. [ 189 M

1993The Court, sua sponte, rejected its prior utilization of a reasonable person standard to determine whether a hostile work environment exists, and ruled: [A] female plaintiff states an actionable claim for sex discrimination caused by hostile-environment sexual harassment under the state Civil Rights Act where she alleges conduct of a sexual nature that a reasonable woman would consider to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment by substantially interfering with her employment or by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment environment. [ 189 M

2025To successfully assert a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided.” [Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc, 327 Mich App 203 , 226-227; 933 NW2d 363 (2019), quoting Novak v Nationwide Mut Ins Co, 235 Mich App 675, 686-687 ; 599 NW2d 546 (1999).] “A prom

2025To successfully assert a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided.” [Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc, 327 Mich App 203 , 226-227; 933 NW2d 363 (2019), quoting Novak v Nationwide Mut Ins Co, 235 Mich App 675, 686-687 ; 599 NW2d 546 (1999).] “A prom

2024This is a valid argument, because whether a party “has an actionable claim for relief is a different question than whether it has a right to litigate its current grievance in our courts.” C- Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive Mich Ins Co, 344 Mich App 626 , 633; 2 NW3d 71 (2022) (C-Spine I). 3 Again, we use the counterclaim’s March 2022 filing date in addressing and deciding this issue. -6- An assignment of rights can only convey rights “actually held at the time of the execution of the assignment.” Shah, 324 Mich App at 205 .

2024Venus Plaza Shopping Ctr, 228 Mich App at 361-362 .

2024“Fraud claims must be pleaded with particularity, addressing each element of the tort,” so a “plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant made a representation that was material, (2) the representation was false, (3) the defendant knew the representation was false, or the defendant’s representation was made recklessly without any knowledge of the potential truth, (4) the defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff would act on it, (5) the plaintiff actually acted in reliance, and (6) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result.” Stephens v Worden Ins Agency, LLC,

2024“Fraud claims must be pleaded with particularity, addressing each element of the tort,” so a “plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant made a representation that was material, (2) the representation was false, (3) the defendant knew the representation was false, or the defendant’s representation was made recklessly without any knowledge of the potential truth, (4) the defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff would act on it, (5) the plaintiff actually acted in reliance, and (6) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result.” Stephens v Worden Ins Agency, LLC,

2023This Court has stated that “a negligence claim may advance solely on a claim of economic loss.” Quest Diagnostics, Inc v MCI WorldCom, Inc, 254 Mich App 372, 381 ; 656 NW2d 858 (2002).

2023This Court has stated that “a negligence claim may advance solely on a claim of economic loss.” Quest Diagnostics, Inc v MCI WorldCom, Inc, 254 Mich App 372, 381 ; 656 NW2d 858 (2002).

2021“To determine whether a promise existed, courts must objectively evaluate the circumstances of the transaction, including the parties’ words, actions, and relationship.” Bodnar, 327 Mich App at 227. “[T]he reliance on [the promise] must be reasonable.” Zaremba Equip, Inc, 280 Mich App at 41 .

2019“When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim, any action it takes, other than to dismiss the action, is void.” Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56 ; 490 NW2d 568 (1992). 1 The Hindmans resist our conclusion that easement actions are equitable in nature, pointing out that in their small claims court petition, the Donovans requested an award of damages.

2019“When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim, any action it takes, other than to dismiss the action, is void.” Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56 ; 490 NW2d 568 (1992). 1 The Hindmans resist our conclusion that easement actions are equitable in nature, pointing out that in their small claims court petition, the Donovans requested an award of damages.