Opinion · Milaw Michigan

SEKULOV v. CITY OF WARREN, 256 Mich. App. 801 (2003)

VERA SEKULOV, Pers. Representative of the Est. of RADE SEKULOVSKI,Deceased v. CITY OF WARREN & COUNTY of MACOMB., 677 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003)

Type
Opinion
Court
Milaw Michigan
Jurisdiction
Milaw
Date
2003-05-14
Topic
general

SEKULOV v. CITY OF WARREN, 256 Mich. App. 801 (2003) 677 N.W.2d 378 VERA SEKULOV, Personal Representative of the Estate of RADE SEKULOVSKI,Deceased v. CITY OF WARREN and COUNTY of MACOMB. No. 228159.Michigan Court of Appeals.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SEKULOV v. CITY OF WARREN, 256 Mich. App. 801 (2003). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SEKULOV v. CITY OF WARREN,256 Mich. App. 801(2003)
677 N.W.2d 378
VERA SEKULOV, Personal Representative of the Estate of RADE SEKULOVSKI,
Deceased v. CITY OF WARREN and COUNTY of MACOMB.
No. 228159.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Order Entered May 14, 2003.
Updated June 20, 2003.
Sekulov v. City of Warren, Docket No. 228159. On reconsideration following remand from the Supreme Court,468 Mich. 863(2003), in light ofAdams v. Dep't of Transportation,253 Mich. App. 431(2002), we affirm the trial court's grant of summary disposition for defendant Macomb County. Because the decision inNawrocki v. Macomb Co Rd Comm,463 Mich. 143;615 N.W.2d 702(2000), and, by implication, the decision inHanson v. Mecosta Co Bd of Co Rd Comm'rs,465 Mich. 492;638 N.W.2d 396(2002), must be applied retroactively, plaintiff's claims do not fall within the highway exception to governmental immunity, MCL691.1402(1). Our previous affirmance of the grant of summary disposition with respect to defendant city of Warren remains valid for the reasons stated in Part IV of our earlier opinion,Sekulov v. Warren,251 Mich. App. 333;650 N.W.2d 397(2002), which opinion was vacated by the Supreme Court in the order remanding this matter for our reconsideration.Page 1