Mays v. Governor of Mich.
Decision Date | 29 July 2020 |
Docket Number | Docket Nos. 157335-7,Calendar No. 2,Docket Nos. 157340-2 |
Citation | 506 Mich. 157,954 N.W.2d 139 |
Parties | Melissa MAYS, Michael Adam Mays, Jacqueline Pemberton, Keith John Pemberton, Elnora Carthan, Rhonda Kelso, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. 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. Melissa Mays, Michael Adam Mays, Jacqueline Pemberton, Keith John Pemberton, Elnora Carthan, Rhonda Kelso, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. 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. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
This putative class action involves a series of events commonly referred to as the "Flint water crisis." Plaintiffs, who are water users and property owners in the city of Flint, sued former Governor Rick Snyder, the state of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (collectively, the state defendants).1 Plaintiffs also sued former city of Flint emergency managers Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose (collectively, the city defendants).2 The state defendants and the city defendants brought separate motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4), (7), and (8). Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs failed to provide timely notice and did not sufficiently plead their claims. The Court of Claims granted partial summary disposition to defendants on claims not relevant to the issues presented in this Court. The Court of Claims denied defendants’ motions for summary disposition with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for violation of their right to bodily integrity under the Due Process Clause of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, art. 1, § 17, and plaintiffs’ claim of inverse condemnation. The state defendants appealed, and cross-appeals followed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims. Both sets of defendants filed applications for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted leave to appeal, and after hearing oral argument on defendants’ applications, a majority of this Court expressly affirms the Court of Appeals’ conclusion regarding plaintiffs’ inverse-condemnation claim. The Court of Appeals opinion is otherwise affirmed by equal division. See MCR 7.315(A).
The trial court record is limited because defendants brought their motions for summary disposition before discovery could be conducted. The facts of the case are disputed. However, because this is an appeal from an opinion that mainly concerns motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8), we accept the contents of the complaint as true unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant3 and we construe the factual allegations in a light most favorable to plaintiffs.4 See Maiden v. Rozwood , 461 Mich. 109, 119-120, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). The Court of Claims summarized plaintiffs’ pleadings as follows:
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants in the Court of Claims, alleging, in part, a claim for inverse condemnation and seeking economic damages both for the physical harm done to their property as well as the diminution of their property's value. Plaintiffs alleged that despite both sets of defendants knowing that the Flint River water was toxic and corrosive, the state defendants authorized the city defendants to service their property with the Flint River water. As a result, plaintiffs alleged that their pipes, service lines, and water heaters were damaged. Plaintiffs also alleged that after the water crisis had become public knowledge, their property's value substantially declined.
Plaintiffs additionally brought a claim for violation of their right to bodily integrity under the Michigan Constitution's Due Process Clause, Const. 1963, art. 1, § 17. Plaintiffs alleged that despite knowing the dangers associated with switching the city of Flint's water source to the Flint River, defendants made the switch with indifference to the known serious medical risks and then misled and deceived the public while concealing information about the toxicity and corrosiveness...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aft v. State
...right."The Legislature has never created an exception to immunity for a constitutional tort." Mays v. Governor , 506 Mich. 157, 187, 954 N.W.2d 139 (2020) (opinion by BERNSTEIN , J.). Nonetheless, in Smith v. Dep't of Pub. Health , 428 Mich. 540, 544, 410 N.W.2d 749 (1987), our Supreme Cour......
-
Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency
...opinion by Bernstein, J.) (collecting cases). We did not return to the question of what remedies are available for constitutional torts until Mays, when we evenly split over whether to a damages remedy for the alleged constitutional violations there. See Mays, 506 Mich. 157. Though the Cour......
-
Proctor v. Saginaw Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners
...entity itself. [Citation omitted; emphasis added.] In Mays v. Governor , 323 Mich.App. 1, 89, 916 N.W.2d 227 (2018), aff'd 506 Mich. 157, 954 N.W.2d 139 (2020), this Court similarly explained that official-capacity lawsuits are "nominal only[.]" Plaintiffs admit on appeal that in an officia......
-
People v. Dehart
...in any degree. When, however, a statute is inconsistent with the federal constitution, the constitution must prevail. Mays v Governor, 506 Mich. 157, 189; 954 N.W.2d 139 (2020). Thus, if, as defendant claims, the statute precluding the destruction of the biometric data and arrest record for......
-
Constitutional Environmental Rights as Tools of Environmental Justice: Applications in the United States Based on Examples from Brazil and France
...though not necessarily through rights or duties. See van Rossum & Manahan, supra note 13, at 28. 16. See Mays v. Governor of Michigan, 954 N.W.2d 139, 144 (Mich. 2020). For background on implied constitutional environmental rights, see generally David R. Boyd, The Implicit Constitutional Ri......
-
"DON'T BLAME THE FLINT RIVER".
...Flint Mayor Dayne Walling, individual MDEQ employees, and the MDEQ itself. Boler, 865 F.3d at 396. (176) Mays v. Governor of Michigan, 954 N.W. 2d 139, 140 (Mich. (177) Among other claims, plaintiffs in the state case alleged a violation of their right to bodily integrity under the Due Proc......