THEODORE SLICER V CITY OF ST JOHNS (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS THEODORE SLICER, UNPUBLISHED December 6, 2012 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellee, v No. 298068 Clinton Circuit Court LC No. 09-010506-CK CITY OF ST. JOHNS, Defendant/Cross-PlaintiffAppellant/Cross-Appellee, and COUNTY OF CLINTON, Defendant, and CLINTON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, Defendant/Cross-DefendantAppellee/Cross-Appellant. Before: TALBOT, P.J., and BECERKING and M. J. KELLY, JJ. TALBOT, J. (concurring). I concur with the majority but write separately to note the following. The record demonstrates that Theodore Slicer was not well served by his attorney. In addition to the problems with the pleadings discussed by the majority, the most glaring issue was counsel s failure to establish, either by inquiry at Slicer s deposition or in an affidavit, the requisite facts to support that he was excused from complying with the notice requirement of the sewage disposal -1- system event exception to governmental immunity.1 Although it is rather obvious that Slicer s failure to give timely notice of his claim resulted from the City s failure to provide him with an explanation of the notice requirements in compliance with the relevant statute,2 such was not demonstrated by the evidence, and thus the notice exemption cannot apply. Slicer, however, continues to have remedies that he may pursue. /s/ Michael J. Talbot 1 MCL 691.1419(3). 2 MCL 691.1419(2). -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.
