Arthur Chapman v. Officer D Mack

923 N.W.2d 887
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 20, 2019
DocketSC: 158169; COA: 335678
StatusPublished

This text of 923 N.W.2d 887 (Arthur Chapman v. Officer D Mack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arthur Chapman v. Officer D Mack, 923 N.W.2d 887 (Mich. 2019).

Opinion

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the appellant's gross negligence claim should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, MCR 2.116(C)(8) ; and (2) whether the appellant's intentional tort claims were barred by governmental immunity because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the appellee acted in good faith and without malice. In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant's brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee's brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
923 N.W.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-chapman-v-officer-d-mack-mich-2019.