Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
May 22, 2019 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
157335-7 David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
157340-2
Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS, Elizabeth T. Clement
JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices
PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN,
RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v SC: 157335-7
COA: 335555; 335725; 335726
Court of Claims: 16-000017-MM
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,
v SC: 157340-2
COA: 335555; 335725; 335726
Court of Claims: 16-000017-MM
GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF
MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
2
DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
CITY OF FLINT,
Not Participating.
_________________________________________/
On 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.
The 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).
3
Persons 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 legal counsel
for the Governor.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 22, 2019
a0515
Clerk