Tzatzken v. City of Detroit

16 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bruce

    504 Mich. 555 (Mich. 2019)   Cited 8 times
    In Bruce, our Supreme Court observed that in its earlier opinion in Freedland, the Court quoted these five factors, but also noted other considerations, thereby suggesting that the five factors are not the exclusive considerations for determining a public officer.

    MCL 764.15d(1). The second factor is satisfied because police officers discharging their duties act for the state in its sovereign capacity, Coutu , 459 Mich. at 355, 589 N.W.2d 458, citing Tzatzken v. Detroit , 226 Mich. 603, 608, 198 N.W. 214 (1924), so necessarily defendants, who were empowered to "enforce state law to the same extent as a state or local officer," MCL 764.15d(1), possessed power delegated by the Legislature that was exercised for the benefit of the public. In full, MCL 764.15d states:

  2. People v. Coutu

    459 Mich. 348 (Mich. 1999)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that deputy sheriffs are public officials for purposes of the common-law offense of misconduct in office

    First, the Legislature provided for the creation of deputy sheriffs at MCL 51.70; MSA 5.863. Second, as law enforcement personnel, deputy sheriffs exercise sovereign power while engaged in the discretionary discharge of their duties. Tzatzken v. Detroit, 226 Mich. 603, 608; 198 N.W. 214 (1924). Third, the Legislature defined in part the powers and duties of deputy sheriffs.

  3. Leckliter v. City of Des Moines

    233 N.W. 58 (Iowa 1930)   Cited 14 times

    We will content ourselves with citing only a few. Aldrich v. City of Youngstown, 106 Ohio St. 342 ( 140 N.E. 164, 27 A.L.R. 1497); Engel v. City of Milwaukee, 158 Wis. 480 ( 149 N.W. 141); Wilcox v. City of Rochester, 190 N.Y. 137 ( 82 N.E. 1119, 17 L.R.A. [N.S.] 741); Scibilia v. Philadelphia, 279 Pa. St. 549 (124 A. 273, 32 A.L.R. 981); Moulton v. City of Fargo, 39 N.D. 502 ( 167 N.W. 717); Jones v. City of New Orleans, 143 La. 1073 ( 79 So. 865); Miller v. City of Macon, 152 Ga. 648 ( 110 S.E. 873); Tzatzken v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich. 603 ( 198 N.W. 214). II. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, by reason of a 2.

  4. People v. Carlin

    571 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    In addition, other cases cited by the prosecution did not determine whether the position of deputy sheriff is one of public office and are therefore distinguishable. See Bostatter v Hinchman, 243 Mich. 589; 220 N.W. 775 (1928); Tzatzken v Detroit, 226 Mich. 603; 198 N.W. 214 (1924); Blynn v Pontiac, 185 Mich. 35; 151 N.W. 681 (1915); White v Humbert, 206 Mich. App. 459; 522 N.W.2d 681 (1994), rev'd sub nom White v Beasley, 453 Mich. 308; 552 N.W.2d 1 (1996); Parker v West Bloomfield Twp, 60 Mich. App. 583; 231 N.W.2d 424 (1975). The dissent's distinction between a "public officer" and a "public official" is inapposite. Whether a person is termed a "public officer" or a "public official" is not crucial.

  5. Lee v. Utica

    83 Mich. App. 679 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    (Emphasis in original.) Until recently, Tzatzken v Detroit, 226 Mich. 603, 607-608; 198 N.W. 214 (1924), epitomized the common law rule in Michigan: "While the courts have encountered difficulties in determining in particular instances whether or not certain officials, employees and agents of municipalities are in the discharge of governmental functions and therefore carry with them the immunity from liability by the municipality for their torts, as to policemen the courts have found little difficulty in putting them in the category of public officers (Blynn v City of Pontiac, 185 Mich. 35 [151 N.W. 681 (1915)]), and the discharge of their duties the discharge of governmental functions.

  6. McCoy v. Sanders

    113 Ga. App. 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 22 times
    Holding damage to private property caused during a search for a missing person was a legitimate exercise of police power, thereby precluding inverse condemnation claim

    A similar result was reached in Sehy v. Salt Lake City, 41 Utah 535 ( 126 P. 691) where the police officers sought to recover the body of a boy who had drowned in a stream. In Tzatzken v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich. 603 ( 198 N.W. 214) recovery was denied for the acts of police officers who, without a warrant, searched plaintiff's home, took therefrom a quantity of liquor which was never returned, and in Savage v. District of Columbia, 52 A.2d 120, the court held that there could be no recovery against the District for the acts of its police officers in breaking the door of plaintiff's premises and permitting third persons to take possession. In Rogers v. City of Atlanta, 143 Ga. 153 ( 84 S.E. 555) it was held that there could be no recovery against the city for the act of its fireman in cutting a hole in a building and leaving it in an exposed condition, this being in the performance of a public or governmental duty.

  7. United States v. City of New York

    82 F.2d 242 (2d Cir. 1936)   Cited 6 times

    These are ancillary to the administration of justice; that is a sovereign function, delegated to municipalities only for convenience. Hence, it is more nearly accurate to call him an "agent of the criminal court" as in Simpson v. St. John, 93 N.Y. 363, 365, than an agent of the city. See, also, Majewski v. Farley, 203 App. Div. 77, 196 N.Y.S. 508; Duboff v. Haslan, 195 App. Div. 117, 186 N.Y.S. 481; Tzatzken v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich. 603, 198 N.W. 214. Before his possession can be imputed to the city a relationship of agent and principal must be shown to exist. Since his control and disposal of the property are governed by statute and are not subject to the commands of any city official, we think it clear that that relationship does not exist.

  8. Shuey v. State of Michigan

    106 F. Supp. 32 (E.D. Mich. 1952)   Cited 5 times

    In that respect its police department, whether created by home rule legislation, charter, or act of the Legislature, is an arm of the sovereign state. Tzatzken v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich. 603, 198 N.W. 214. Furthermore, if plaintiff's complaint be construed as based upon the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, the City of Detroit is not a "person" to subject it to liability under those acts. Hewitt v. City of Jacksonville, 5 Cir., 188 F.2d 423.

  9. Bisio v. City of Vill. of Clarkston

    506 Mich. 37 (Mich. 2020)   Cited 8 times
    Adopting an interpretation of a statute favoring a party contrary to that party's concession when the issue was raised at the eleventh hour by amicus, the issue was not addressed at oral argument, and the parties were not given an opportunity for supplemental briefing

    The new categories of local officers subject to FOIA as public bodies would appear to include, at a minimum, county officials (such as county executives, prosecutors, clerks, treasurers, and county commission members); local government officials (such as mayors, city council members, supervisors, trustees, clerks, treasurers, city attorneys, city assessors, city managers, and police and fire chiefs); and thousands of police officers, deputy sheriffs, assistant prosecutors, and assistant attorneys general. See People v. Coutu , 459 Mich. 348, 357-358, 589 N.W.2d 458 (1999) (holding that deputy sheriffs are public officials for purposes of the common-law offense of misconduct in office); Tzatzken v. Detroit , 226 Mich. 603, 608, 198 N.W. 214 (1924) (holding that police officers are public officers for purposes of tort immunity). It will also likely include any person who is elected or appointed to "[a] department, board, agency, institution, commission, authority, division, council, college, university, school district, intermediate school district, special district, or other public entity of this state or a city, village, township, or county in this state."

  10. Williams v. City of Detroit

    364 Mich. 231 (Mich. 1961)   Cited 181 times
    Abrogating municipal immunity based on law's "transition from individualism to collective security"

    The constitutional provisions above referred to require that any change in such respect shall be made by the legislature. Among the decisions recognizing immunity from liability in such cases are: Brink v. City of Grand Rapids, 144 Mich. 472; Tzatzken v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich. 603; Butler v. City of Grand Rapids, 273 Mich. 674; Royston v. City of Charlotte, 278 Mich. 255; and Penix v. City of St. Johns, 354 Mich. 259. Counsel for appellant admit the present rule of law in this State but ask this Court to summarily change it by abrogating the immunity rule.