Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Dishaw v. Somerville Associates

6/3/2003

into the school district. Whatever considerations govern a citizen's intervention pursuant to court rule in a lawsuit in which a governmental entity is the defendant, they have no bearing on the question presented here: whether a citizen taxpayer may commence a suit against contractors with a governmental entity when the entity has not filed suit. Indeed, intervention to help a governmental entity defend against an injunctive action or a suit for damages raises significantly different policy concerns than bringing a suit that the government entity allegedly could have pursued but did not. Intervention to defend a suit does not pose a severe threat to government discretion. In contrast, allowing a taxpayer to commence an independent action against third parties on behalf of a governmental entity, in the absence of any decision from the governmental entity to pursue such an action, impedes the entity's exercise of its discretion. A governmental entity may choose not to pursue a suit for many reasons, including an assessment that it is meritless, the belief that relief can be more readily obtained through other avenues, or a conclusion that litigation will harm the entity's interests.


For these reasons, in the instant case we conclude that plaintiff cannot bring an action on behalf of the school board against defendants, who are parties to a contract with the school district. The trial court therefore did not err in granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on the basis of plaintiff's lack of standing to pursue the present claims.


With regard to plaintiff's motion for class action certification, this Court has held that " plaintiff who cannot maintain the cause of action as an individual is not qualified to represent the proposed class." Zine v Chrysler Corp, 236 Mich App 261, 287; 600 NW2d 384 (1999). Thus, the trial court properly held that because plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit, her motion for certification of a class action was rendered moot.


Affirmed.


Michael R. Smolenski


Richard Allen Griffin


Peter D. O'Connell






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE