Legal Opinion · Dissent

Moore v. Detroit Entertainment, LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 27, 2008No. Docket 275157Published

1Dissent

O’CONNELL, EJ.

(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the trial court erred when it failed to grant defendant’s motion for directed verdict regarding plaintiffs 42 USC 1983 claim because private security guards are not state actors. The trial court also erred by adopting federal precedent as persuasive and rejecting the Michigan Supreme Court’s reasoning in Grand Rapids v Impens, 414 Mich 667, 670; 327 NW2d 278 (1982). I would reverse the decision of the trial court.

In order to maintain an action under § 1983, a plaintiff is required to establish that he or she was “deprived of a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Abela v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Lynette Chapman v. The Higbee Company, D/B/A Dillard Department Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  5. Romanski v. Detroit EntertainmentCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005

4 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