Legal Opinion

Burise v. City of Pontiac

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 12, 2009No. Docket 281443PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant, the city of Pontiac, appeals as of right the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary disposition brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law). Because plaintiff Wilhelmena Burise 1 timely served defendant with “a notice” conforming to the requirements of MCL 691.1404(1), we affirm, although for reasons other than those relied on by the trial court. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff brought suit for an injury allegedly caused by a defect in a roadway within the city.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Scarsella v. PollakMichigan Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Barrow v. City of Detroit Election CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. McLean v. City of DearbornMichigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Plunkett v. Department of TransportationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Pontiac Police & Fire Retiree Prefunded Group Health & Insurance Trust Board of Trustees v. City of Pontiac No 2Michigan Court of Appeals · 2015

16 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