Corrections immunity (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

Corrections immunity in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2008 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Northville Charter Township v. Northville Public Schoolsgreen
mich · 2003 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008The present case also differs from Dearden, supra at 265-267 , in which our Supreme Court determined that the Legislature’s use of language in the corrections code, MCL 791.201 et seq., such as “exclusive jurisdiction,” MCL 791.204, and the broad vesting of powers in the Michigan Corrections Commission over “all matters related to the unified development of the penal institutions,” former MCL 791.202, were evidence that “the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.” Similarly, in Northville Cha

2008The present case also differs from Dearden, supra at 265-267 , in which our Supreme Court determined that the Legislature’s use of language in the corrections code, MCL 791.201 et seq., such as “exclusive jurisdiction,” MCL 791.204, and the broad vesting of powers in the Michigan Corrections Commission over “all matters related to the unified development of the penal institutions,” former MCL 791.202, were evidence that “the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.” Similarly, in Northville Cha

11
Pittsfield Charter Township v. Washtenaw Countygreen
mich · 2003 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Also, in Pittsfield Charter Twp v Washtenaw Co, 468 Mich 702, 703, 711 ; 664 NW2d 193 (2003), the Court, in determining whether the defendant was required to comply with local zoning ordi nances in selecting the site of a homeless shelter, emphasized that MCL 46.11 empowers a county board of commissioners to determine the site of county buildings, with only one limitation, relating to “any requirement of law that the building be located at the county seat.” The Court concluded that the Legislature intended no other limitation.

2008Also, in Pittsfield Charter Twp v Washtenaw Co, 468 Mich 702, 703, 711 ; 664 NW2d 193 (2003), the Court, in determining whether the defendant was required to comply with local zoning ordi nances in selecting the site of a homeless shelter, emphasized that MCL 46.11 empowers a county board of commissioners to determine the site of county buildings, with only one limitation, relating to “any requirement of law that the building be located at the county seat.” The Court concluded that the Legislature intended no other limitation.

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Dearden v. City of Detroit green
mich · 1978
2 sentences

2008The present case also differs from Dearden, supra at 265-267 , 269 N.W.2d 139 , in which our Supreme Court determined that the Legislature's use of language in the corrections code, MCL 791.201 et seq., such as "exclusive jurisdiction," MCL 791.204, and the broad vesting of powers in the Michigan Corrections Commission over "all matters related to the unified development of the penal institutions," former MCL 791.202, were evidence that "the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions." Similarly,

2008The present case also differs from Dearden, supra at 265-267 , in which our Supreme Court determined that the Legislature’s use of language in the corrections code, MCL 791.201 et seq., such as “exclusive jurisdiction,” MCL 791.204, and the broad vesting of powers in the Michigan Corrections Commission over “all matters related to the unified development of the penal institutions,” former MCL 791.202, were evidence that “the Legislature intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal institutions.” Similarly, in Northville Cha

21998–2008
Cody Park Ass'n v. Royal Oak School District green
michctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

11988–1988
Marquette County v. Board of Control of Northern Michigan University green
michctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

11988–1988
Lutheran High School Ass'n v. City of Farmington Hills neutral
michctapp · 1985
2 sentences

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

11988–1988
Pecoraro v. Department of Corrections green
michctapp · 1980
2 sentences

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

1988Consequently, defendant’s zoning ordinance is void to the extent that it attempts to prohibit the use of the subject property as a rehabilitation center. [ 403 Mich 265 -267.] See also Pecoraro v Dep’t of Corrections, 100 Mich App 802 ; 300 NW2d 418 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 973 (1981); Marquette Co v Bd of Control of Northern Michigan Univ, 111 Mich App 521, 526 ; 314 NW2d 678 (1981); Cody Park Ass’n v Royal Oak School Dist, 116 Mich App 103, 106-107 ; 321 NW2d 855 (1982), lv den 417 Mich 985 (1983); and Lu theran High School Ass’n v Farmington Hills, 146 Mich App 641, 645-647 ; 381 NW2d 417 (1

11988–1988
Wolff v. McDonnell green
scotus · 1974
2 sentences

1986As noted by the people, there were no pending criminal charges against defendant at the time defendant made admissions to the administrative law examiner. 3 A Michigan Department of Corrections hearing is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which involves a recognized liberty interest and which affords defendant with the limited due process requirements mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539 ; 94 S Ct 2963 ; 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974).

1986As noted by the people, there were no pending criminal charges against defendant at the time defendant made admissions to the administrative law examiner. 3 A Michigan Department of Corrections hearing is an administrative adjudicatory proceeding which involves a recognized liberty interest and which affords defendant with the limited due process requirements mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539 ; 94 S Ct 2963 ; 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974).

11986–1986
Edmond v. Department of Corrections neutral
michctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1985The cases were consolidated in the Court of Appeals, which held for the offenders for the sole reason that "[t]he Department of Corrections’ rule and policy directive precluding 'drug traffickers’ from consideration for placement in the community program fails to comply with the underlying legislative intent of the act . . . .” 116 Mich App 1, 13 ; 321 NW2d 817 (1982).

1985The cases were consolidated in the Court of Appeals, which held for the offenders for the sole reason that "[t]he Department of Corrections’ rule and policy directive precluding 'drug traffickers’ from consideration for placement in the community program fails to comply with the underlying legislative intent of the act . . . .” 116 Mich App 1, 13 ; 321 NW2d 817 (1982).

11985–1985
People v. Watt green
michctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1983Defendant primarily relies on the case of People v Watt, 115 Mich App 172 ; 320 NW2d 333 (1982).

1983Defendant primarily relies on the case of People v Watt, 115 Mich App 172 ; 320 NW2d 333 (1982).

11983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.201 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.204 (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 6 (1983–2008) CA 5 (1982–2005) FL 3 (1992–2008) WI 2 (1993–1998)

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