VanVorous v. Burmeister
Decision Date | 01 September 2004 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 248450. |
Citation | 262 Mich. App. 467,687 N.W.2d 132 |
Parties | Darlene VANVOROUS, Personal Representative of the Estate of John VanVorous, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric BURMEISTER, Paul Anderson, and Daniel Bartell, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Petrucelli & Petrucelli, P.C. (by Vincent R. Petrucelli and Jonny L. Waara), Iron River, for the plaintiff.
Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. (by Mary Massaron Ross and Camille T. Horne), Detroit, for Eric Burmeister.
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Mark E. Donnelly, Assistant Attorney General, for Paul Anderson and Daniel Bartell. Before: WHITBECK, C.J., and RICHARD ALLEN GRIFFIN and BORRELLO, JJ.
Plaintiff Darlene VanVorous appeals by right orders dismissing her claims of assault and battery, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress filed on behalf of her decedent, John VanVorous, after he was shot and killed by defendant police officers. In this case, we are asked to determine whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff's state law claims where her Fourth Amendment excessive force claim has been adjudicated in federal court. Plaintiff also asserts that summary disposition was premature because discovery was incomplete. Because we agree with the trial court that the determination of plaintiff's state law claims rests on an identical issue decided by the federal court, and because plaintiff produced no support for her contention that further facts would change the outcome, we affirm.
The facts of this case, which were competently set forth in detail by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, VanVorous v. Burmeister, 2001 WL 1699200, *1-*3, 2001 U.S. Dist LEXIS 21759, *2-*10 (, )aff'd 2004 WL 874803, 2004 U.S. App LEXIS 7920 (CA 6, 2004), are reprinted here for the reader's convenience:
1 There is no allegation that VanVorous was involved in this activity. It was included in the report to explain why the officers were in the area when the vehicle chase began.
2 The vehicle turned out to be a GMC Jimmy.
3 Burmeister later testified that he was not attempting to set up a road block at that intersection but rather position his vehicle so he could rejoin the pursuit.
4 This information was not included in the statement he made to a reporting lieutenant two hours after the incident.
Plaintiff then brought suit against defendants and the city of Menominee, claiming that the officers violated her son's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and that the city authorized, or acquiesced to, the behavior.1 Arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity, the defendant officers moved for summary judgment under FRCP 56(c), which requires dismissal of a claim where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The district court determined that, to resolve the question whether qualified immunity applied to defendants, it must engage in a two-step inquiry and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fleming v. Scruggs
...law, it is not available to remedy an alleged intentional wrong such as the Tasing of Fleming. See, e.g. , VanVorous v. Burmeister , 262 Mich.App. 467, 687 N.W.2d 132, 143 (2004) ("Thus, plaintiff's claim of gross negligence is fully premised on her claim of excessive force. As defendants c......
-
Rental Props. Owners Ass'n of Kent Cnty. v. Kent Cnty. Treasurer
...to apply, the parties in the second action must be the same as or privy to the parties in the first action. VanVorous v. Burmeister, 262 Mich.App. 467, 480, 687 N.W.2d 132 (2004). A party is one who was directly interested in the subject matter and had a right to defend or to control the pr......
-
Kolley v. Adult Protective Serv.
...harmful or offensive touching of another person which results from an act intended to cause such a contact.” VanVorous v. Burmeister, 262 Mich.App. 467, 687 N.W.2d 132, 142 (2004). Plaintiffs' allegations, shocking as they are, do not contend that any Defendants (the battery claim is made a......
- People v. Ford