Opinion · Michigan Supreme Court

Hill v. City of Warren

474 Mich. 916

Type
Opinion
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Date
2005-11-09
Topic
general

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan November 9, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128511 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver ROBERT HILL, SHIRLEY HILL, TIMOTHY Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan CARLSON, RANDALL KOLODZIEJSKI, Robert P.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hill v. City of Warren. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
705 N.W.2d 345 (2005) 474 Mich. 916

Robert HILL, Shirley Hill, Timothy Carlson, Randall Kolodziejski, Linda Kolodziejski, William Glasson, Beverly Glasson, David Abraham, Kristin Abraham, Dennis D. Marlowe, Dennis Hight, Tracy Hight, Ted Dobek, Carolyn Kupiec, Frederick Cross, Michelle Cross, Sandra Powers, Daniel G. Olivares, Francesco Simone, Pamela Simone, Gary Potapshyn, Gerald Kowalski, and Frank Vitale, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 128511. COA No. 259706.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

November 9, 2005.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. Among the issues to be considered, the Court of Appeals shall consider whether Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 465 Mich. 675, 641 N.W.2d 219 (2002), affects the class certification issue in this case. Pohutski held that § 7 of the governmental tort liability act, M.C.L. § 691.1407, does not permit a trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity, but ruled that this holding would be applied only to cases brought on or after April 2, 2002. In light of Pohutski, are issues relating to putative plaintiffs unnamed as of April 2, 2002 sufficiently disparate from issues relating to plaintiffs who were named as of April 2, 2002, such that certification of a single class containing both groups of plaintiffs would be inappropriate under MCR 3.501(A)(1)?

We do not retain jurisdiction.

MARILYN J. KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal.