Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2022–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcoticsgreen2 sentences2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte 2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte | 3 | 3 |
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte 2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte | 3 | 3 |
Davis v. Passmangreen2 sentences2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte 2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte | 3 | 3 |
Carlson v. Greengreen2 sentences2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte 2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte | 3 | 3 |
Jones v. Powellgreen2 sentences2025The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that “Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee.” Jones, 462 Mich at 335 . 2025See Jones, 462 Mich at 336-337 (ruling that previous caselaw “provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee,” rather, a plaintiff may sue local governments or individual defendants under 42 USC 1983 “to redress a violation of a federal constitutional right”). | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ziglar v. Abbasi
green
2 sentences2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte 2022We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling “that our decision in Smith provides no support for inferring a damage remedy for a violation of the Michigan Constitution in an action against a municipality or an individual government employee” because those plaintiffs had adequate alternative remedies under federal law. 10 In Lewis v Michigan, we declined to infer a cause of action under the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 2, because that provision expressly states it will be implemented by the Legislature. 11 Finally, in Mays, only a plurality of the Court supporte | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Egbert v. Boule
green
2 sentences2022Legislation is the business of the Congress, and it has the facilities and competence for that task—as we do not.”). 5 just this year, “Now long past ‘the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action,’ . . . we have come ‘to appreciate more fully the tension between’ judicially created causes of action and ‘the Constitution’s separation of legislative and judicial power . . . .’ ” 17 “At bottom,” the Court continued, “creating a cause of action is a legislative endeavor.” 18 The Court appears to have limited Bivens and the two other cases allowing damages 2022Legislation is the business of the Congress, and it has the facilities and competence for that task—as we do not.”). 5 just this year, “Now long past ‘the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action,’ . . . we have come ‘to appreciate more fully the tension between’ judicially created causes of action and ‘the Constitution’s separation of legislative and judicial power . . . .’ ” 17 “At bottom,” the Court continued, “creating a cause of action is a legislative endeavor.” 18 The Court appears to have limited Bivens and the two other cases allowing damages | 3 | 2022–2022 |
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.