Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lash v. City of Traverse City

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 2007No. Docket 131632Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.

{concurring in part and dissenting in part). Consistent with this Court’s unfortunate decision in Mack v Detroit,1 the doctrine of governmental immunity bars plaintiffs cause of action here. Hence, no useful purpose is served by interpreting MCL 15.602 or deciding whether a private cause of action exists under the statute. The majority’s discussion of these two issues is only dictum.

*199However, because the majority chooses to discuss these two issues, I will respond. First, I agree that the 20-mile distance permitted in MCL 15.602 is to be measured in radial miles as opposed to road miles. Also,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. MacK v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Pompey v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Costa v. Community Emergency Medical Services, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. KircherMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Lash v. City of Traverse CityMichigan Supreme Court · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API