Diehl v. Danuloff

¶1(concurring). I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for the reasons stated by the court in part m B of the majority’s opinion. Because summary disposition can be affirmed on the basis of the quasi-*136judicial immunity principles described there, I also conclude that it is unnecessary for us to consider the application of the governmental immunity act (part m A of the majority’s opinion) or the propriety or applicability of Bullock v Huster, 209 Mich App 551, 555; 532 NW2d 202 (1995), vacated and remanded 451 Mich 884 (1996), (On Remand), 218 Mich App 400; 554 NW2d 47 (1996), and further conclude we need not “hold that private psychologists performing court-ordered custody evaluations are excluded from the scope of governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).” Ante at 127.