Carson J. Tucker Files Supreme Court Application in Highway Defect Case

Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker filed an application in the Michigan Supreme Court on February 25 in the case of Menard v Imig requesting the Michigan Supreme Court to tie up loose ends in the interpretation of the notice provision in the Highway Exception to governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401, et seq. Read our application here: ALTA.02.25.2020

We have been preparing, formatting and filing our briefs in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court under Administrative Order 2019-6, which allows us to use all the readability and formatting tools of Adobe to create fully interactive and e-friendly briefs. As a former Supreme Court law clerk and an insurance coverage counsel, Mr. Tucker understands the convenience of having a fully interactive document with all file contents and citations referenced and linked for quick review. The ideal briefs (which we strive to create) will contain links to cases, links to the direct location (page and line) in the Appendix and/or accompanying attachments and indices and tables of contents that are fully interactive – meaning the reader can toggle back and forth to the references and have immediate confirmation and documentary support for our arguments and factual assertions, respectively. We can also use a larger, eye-friendly font!

Lawyer’s Weekly Chronicles Appellate Court Victory by Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker

The lawyer’s weekly recently published an article on the Menard v Imig case in which I successfully represented the Macomb County governmental defendants in the Court of Appeals, briefing and arguing this case addressing governmental immunity and the highway defect exception under the Governmental Tort Liability Act.

Macomb County Road Department Not Liable

 

Michigan Supreme Court Poised to Decide Whether Strict or Substantial Compliance is Sufficient Under Highway Exception to Governmental Immunity

Oral arguments on applications to the Michigan Supreme Court have been scheduled to determine whether the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Liability Act’s (GTLA) “highway exception” to immunity are to be “strictly” or only “substantially” complied with.

The order springs from two Court of Appeals cases, Wigfall v Detroit, and West v Detroit. Both cases involve, among other questions, the sufficiency of notice provided to the City under the “highway exception”, MCL 691.1404(2).

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument on several questions, including:

(1) whether strict or substantial compliance is required with the notice provision contained within MCL 691.1404(2), compare Rowland v Washtenaw County Road Commission, 477 Mich 197 (2007), with Plunkett v Dep’t of Transportation, 286 Mich App 168 (2009);

(2) whether the plaintiff’s notice failed to comply with MCL 691.1404(2) under either a strict or substantial compliance standard;

(3) whether an individual described in MCR 2.105(G)(2) can delegate the legal authority to accept lawful process under MCL 691.1404(2), see 1 Mich Civ Jur Agency § 1 (2018); and

(4) whether the defendant should be estopped from asserting that the statutory notice requirement was not met.

Here is the Court’s complete orders from both cases: Wigfall v Detroit MOAA Order and West v Detroit MOAA Order

The outcome of this case will be significant in consideration of governmental liability under the GTLA.

Law Offices of Carson J. Tucker has developed a particular expertise in prosecuting and defending appeals in state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. The firm’s principal Carson J. Tucker is also a frequent author of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the United States Supreme Court and state and federal courts on behalf of various governmental and non-governmental entities, not-for-profit corporations, and individuals.

A significant portion of his practice is also focused on appellate matters in which his efforts are directed at changing the law for a wide swath of interested parties and stakeholders. In addition to being licensed to practice in Michigan, Mr. Tucker is admitted to practice in the Eastern and Western District Federal Courts in Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Tucker has also presented for the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) on the latest legal issues in municipal liability law under the U.S. Constitution,  and related state and federal legislation, covering his familiarity and expertise on the many diverse questions that arise in this ever-changing and dynamic area of the law.

Mr. Tucker presented direct representation to the defendants and prosecuted the entire appeal, including all appellate briefings and oral arguments before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in the following cases, among others:

• Estate of Truett v. Wayne County, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, dated May 6, 2014 (Docket No. 313638), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker for Wayne County
• Atkins v. SMART, 492 Mich. 707 (August 20, 2012), application granted, and briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Supreme Court
• Gentry v. Wayne County Deputy Sheriff Daniel Carmona, unpublished opinion of hte Michigan Court of Appeals, dated October 11, 2011 (Docket No. 296580), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Court of Appeals
• Hamed v. Wayne County, 490 Mich. 1 (July 29, 2011), briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
• Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (December 30, 2008), application for leave to appeal granted, and briefed and argued by Carson J. Tucker in the Supreme Court

Mr. Tucker has also served as special appellate counsel for governmental entities and organizations in writing amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in the following cases, among others:

• Hannay v MDOT, ___ Mich. ___ (December 19, 2014), application granted, amicus curiae filed for Michigan Townships Association, Macomb County, Oakland County and Wayne County, et al., by Carson J. Tucker
• Yono v. MDOT, ___ Mich ___ (2014), oral argument on application granted, amicus curiae for Oakland, Macomb and Wayne County filed by Carson J. Tucker in support of the state’s application
• Ashley, LLC v Pittsfield Twp., 494 Mich 875 (2013), application granted, for Pittsfield Township by Carson J. Tucker
• Hagerty v. Manistee County Road Commission, 493 Mich 933 (2013), amicus curiae for Michigan Municipal League, et al., by Carson J. Tucker

Mr. Tucker can be reached at +17348879261.

Supreme Court to Consider Scope of Highway Defect Exception

In Yono v. MDOT, Supreme Court Case No. 146603, a case in which I submitted an amicus curiae brief for Macomb County Department of Roads, Oakland County Road Commission and Wayne County in support of the state’s application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted oral argument on the application and invited additional briefing.  Read my previous posts about this case here, where I originally addressed the Court of Appeals opinion and predicted it would be subject to further review:

Court of Appeals Rules Parallel Parking Area Part of Highway Under Highway Exception to Governmental Immunity

Here is my amicus brief supporting the state’s application to the Supreme Court:

99370.sc amicus brief

I will be submitting a supplemental amicus brief per the Court’s grant order.

 

Michigan Court of Appeals Rules “Substantial Compliance” With Statutory Notice Provision Sufficient to Give Governmental Entity Sufficient Notice of Defect Under “Highway Exception” to Governmental Immunity

Although the Court of Appeals does not use the term “substantial compliance” in this case, it rules that there was enough information in the plaintiff’s communications to the City of Detroit to provide the city with proper notice of a defect in a sidewalk within the meaning of MCL 691.1404 (the notice provision concerning the “highway exception” to governmental immunity).

I have written many times on the issue of “strict” as opposed to “substantial” compliance with the notice provision.  I have also contended the jurisdictional prerequisite for a trial court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit against the government, which include notice provisions, require strict compliance.

Any effort to collect distended factual information and evidence and use that conglomeration to effectively rule that the governmental entity “should have had” notice, rather than a showing that it actually did have the requisite notice with the degree of precise specificity required by the statute is, in my judgment, an unwarranted exercise of jurisdiction by courts of suits against the government.  Notwithstanding this jurisdictional principle of governmental immunity, which is adhered to in Michigan, the Supreme Court has rejected attempts to make an end run around a plaintiff’s strict compliance with the notice provision.

Yet, trial courts and the Court of Appeals continue to find ways to improvidently exercise jurisdiction over these cases.  The Court’s short opinion is attached here:  Curtis v. City of Detroit