are at issue. See Rodwell v Forrest, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 25, 2010 (Docket No. 289038). Setting aside that Rodwell has no precedential value, MCR 7.215(C)(1), central to Rodwell’s holding was that governmental immunity cannot provide a shield from constitutional tort liability. Rodwell, unpub op at 5. No doubt that is the case. See Co Rd Ass’n of Mich v Governor, 287 Mich App 95, 121; 782 NW2d 784 (2010). But that proposition is not at issue here, as the statutory notice requirement of § 6431 does not preclude plaintiff from suing for a violation of Article 1, § 16, it just contains a procedural mechanism for bringing such a claim. 4 See Sault Ste Marie City Comm v Sault Ste Marie City Attorney, 313 Mich 644, 654, 659; 21 NW2d 906 (1946) (<HOLDING>). 5 See Detroit v Oakland Circuit Judge, 237
holding that no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records exists under alaska constitution holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution holding that article 8  24 of the 1908 constitution authorizing a city or village to issue bonds under certain conditions to acquire or operate a public utility is not selfexecuting holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution holding that to the extent the constitutional provision permitting cities to acquire parks without their corporate limits comprehends the right of acquisition by eminent domain see 1908 const art 8  22 the provision is not selfexecuting as it merely lays down a general principle 