Buy This Entire Record For
Mays v. Governor of Michigan
Supreme Court of Michigan
May 22, 2019
MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS, JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN, RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants, and DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE, Defendants-Appellees, and CITY OF FLINT, Not Participating. MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS, JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN, RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, and DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE, Defendants-Appellants, and CITY OF FLINT, Not Participating.
of Claims: 16-000017-MM
Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice, David F. Viviano, Chief
Justice, Pro Tem Stephen J. Markman, Brian K. Zahra, Richard
H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh,
order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the
January 25, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals are
considered, and they are GRANTED. The parties shall include
among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs'
cause of action accrued, see Henry v Dow Chemical
Co, 501 Mich. 965 (2018), and Frank v Linkner,
500 Mich. 133 (2017); (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred
in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL
600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL
600.6431(3); (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401
et seq., there is a "harsh and unreasonable
consequences" exception to the notice requirement of MCL
600.6431(3) when a constitutional tort is alleged, compare
McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (2012), and
Rusha v Dep't of Corrections, 307 Mich.App. 300
(2014); (4) if there is such an exception, whether it is met
by the facts alleged in the plaintiffs' amended
complaint; (5) whether the Court of Appeals erred in
recognizing a constitutional tort for violation of bodily
integrity under Const 1963, art 1, § 17, and, if not,
whether the plaintiffs properly alleged such a violation, and
whether a damages remedy is available for such a violation,
see Smith v Dep't of Public Health, 428 Mich.
540 (1987); Jones v Powell, 462 Mich. 329 (2000);
(6) for purposes of the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation
claim, whether the plaintiffs have alleged direct action by
defendants against the plaintiffs' property, and a
special or unique injury, see Peterman v Dep't of
Natural Resources, 446 Mich. 177, 190 (1994); Spiek
v Dep't of Transp, 456 Mich. 331, 348 (1998); and
(7) for purposes of the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation
claim, the manner in which the class of similarly situated
persons should be defined.
total time allowed for oral argument shall be 60 minutes: 30
minutes for plaintiffs, and 30 minutes for defendants, to be
divided at their discretion. MCR 7.314(B)(1).
or groups interested in the determination of the issues
presented in this case may move the Court for permission to
file briefs amicus curiae. Motions for permission to file
briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae regarding these
cases should be filed in Mays v Governor (Docket
Nos. 157335-7) only and served on the parties in both cases.
Clement, J., not participating due to her prior involvement
as chief ...