RHONDA RENEE GREEN V OFFICER JILL KULHANEK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RHONDA RENEE GREEN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 1, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
OFFICER JILL KULHANEK, OFFICER
ANNETTE M. COPPOCK, OFFICER BRENT
YUCHASZ, OFFICER LEON FORYSTEK, and
SERGEANT AMY F. WALKER,
No. 285882
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001404-NZ
Defendants-Appellants,
and
OFFICER MICHAEL ARNTZ and SERGEANT
STACY CAIN,
Defendants.
RHONDA RENEE GREEN,
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellee,
v
OFFICER MICHAEL ARNTZ and SERGEANT
STACY CAIN,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
SERGEANT AMY F. WALKER,
Defendant-Cross-Appellant,
and
-1-
No. 285918
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001404-NZ
OFFICER JILL KULHANEK, OFFICER
ANNETTE M. COPPOCK, OFFICER BRENT
YUCHASZ, and OFFICER LEON FORYSTEK,
Defendants.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
MURRAY, J. (concurring).
I fully concur in the lead opinion’s analysis and conclusion that reverses the trial court’s
order which denied defendants’ motion for summary disposition. I write separately to address
Judge Beckering’s concurrence. In particular, Judge Beckering takes the position that the
majority opinion “evaluates governmental immunity as if plaintiff bears the burden of proof”
which she (correctly) opines would be contrary to the mandates of Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich
459, 479; 760 NW2d 217 (2008). However, the lead opinion does not in any manner place on
plaintiff the burden of proving that defendants’ actions were excepted from governmental
immunity. Instead, the lead opinion correctly concludes that plaintiff failed to submit any
evidence to contradict defendants’ documented assertion that there is no evidence that these
defendants engaged in conduct that could amount to statutory gross negligence. A conclusion
that the plaintiff has failed to bring forward sufficient evidence to rebut or dispute defendants’
properly supported motion for summary disposition is a far cry from placing the burden of proof
on plaintiff that an exception exists to governmental immunity. The lead opinion’s resolution of
these issues was procedurally and substantively proper, and that is why I fully join in that
opinion.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
