Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Landry v. City of Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 20, 1985No. Docket 70836Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partM. J. Kelly, J.

I agree with the majority opinion except as to its treatment of the nuisance issue and the public-building exception to governmental immunity.

Plaintiffs assert that allowing a dangerous condition to continue in the Recorder’s Court, Frank Murphy Hall of Justice constitutes a nuisance. In Furness v Public Service Comm, 100 Mich App 365, 370; 299 NW2d 35 (1980), the Court stated:

"The gravamen of these allegations is that the defendants were negligent in failing to correct a known danger (nuisance). This alleged conduct is omissive rather than commissive and would therefore fall within the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Bush v. Oscoda Area SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Rosario v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Pichette v. Manistique Public SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Furness v. Public Service CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
  5. Vargo v. SvitchanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980

8 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