Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Li v. Feldt

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1990No. Docket Nos. 84303, 85365, (Calendar Nos. 4-5)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGriffin, J.

Although I concur in the majority’s holding that intentional nuisance is not an exception to governmental immunity, I write separately to register my disagreement with the "historical approach” relied upon to reach that result, and to dissent from that portion of the opinion which would remand these cases to the Court of Appeals.

It is important to keep in mind that these cases involve the immunity of governmental agencies other than the state.1 The first sentence of § 7 of the governmental immunity act provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this act, all *597governmental agencies shall be…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Ross v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Williams v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Smith v. Department of Public HealthMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Hyde v. University of Michigan Board of RegentsMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Parker v. City of Highland ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1978

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API