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 1 courts 1981–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Plunkett v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2015See also Plunkett v Dep’t of Transp, 286 Mich App 168, 181 ; 779 NW2d 263 (2009) (stating same). 2015Secondly, plaintiffs’ sole argument regarding the trial court’s dismissal of their forcible entry and detainer and constructive eviction and trespass claims is that summary disposition was improper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because governmental immunity did not shield the township from liability for those intentional torts. -7- Under the Michigan governmental immunity act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., governmental agencies have the benefit of extensive immunity from tort liability while they are “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL 691.1407; see Plunkett, 286 Mich App a | 2 | 2 |
Tarlea v. Crabtreegreen2 sentences2016ANALYSIS Under the Michigan governmental immunity act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., governmental agencies and their employees have the benefit of extensive immunity from tort liability while they are “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL 691.1407; see also Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 82 ; 687 NW2d 333 (2004). 2016ANALYSIS Under the Michigan governmental immunity act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., governmental agencies and their employees have the benefit of extensive immunity from tort liability while they are “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL 691.1407; see also Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 82 ; 687 NW2d 333 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Heather Lynn Hannay v. Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2015Secondly, plaintiffs’ sole argument regarding the trial court’s dismissal of their forcible entry and detainer and constructive eviction and trespass claims is that summary disposition was improper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because governmental immunity did not shield the township from liability for those intentional torts. -7- Under the Michigan governmental immunity act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., governmental agencies have the benefit of extensive immunity from tort liability while they are “engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL 691.1407; see Plunkett, 286 Mich App a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nawrocki v. MacOmb County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2017Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Com’n, 463 Mich 143, 156 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000). 2017Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Com’n, 463 Mich 143, 156 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Odom v. Wayne County
green
2 sentences2015Plaintiffs rely on Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008), in support of their position that defendants’ acts are not protected by governmental immunity. 2015Plaintiffs rely on Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008), in support of their position that defendants’ acts are not protected by governmental immunity. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.
green
2 sentences1981Those cases that have found a governmental function involve an activity that can indeed only be carried on by government (eg., operation of a jail) or that is necessary to the policies and continued operation of the functions of the state, because of the lack of sufficient similar activity in the private sector (eg., public mental hospitals).” Ross v Consumers Power Co, 93 Mich App 687, 696-697 ; 287 NW2d 319 (1979). 1981Those cases that have found a governmental function involve an activity that can indeed only be carried on by government (eg., operation of a jail) or that is necessary to the policies and continued operation of the functions of the state, because of the lack of sufficient similar activity in the private sector (eg., public mental hospitals).” Ross v Consumers Power Co, 93 Mich App 687, 696-697 ; 287 NW2d 319 (1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.