In Re Apportionment of the Ontonagon Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 157 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Apportionment of the Ontonagon Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 157 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re APPORTIONMENT OF THE ONTONAGON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS — 1967.
3,714.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Apr 30, 1968.
157 N.W.2d 698
Per Curiam.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Messner & LaBine, for plaintiff, Carp Lake Township.

Allen R. Briggs, Ontonagon County Prosecuting Attorney, for defendants.

Amici Curiae:

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, and Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, for the Attorney General.

Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs & O'Connell, for Michigan State AFL-CIO.

[*350] Tom Downs, for Marvin R. Stempien, former chairman of apportionment committee of State house of representatives.

Charles A. Larnard, for Michigan State Association of Supervisors.

Vander Veen, Freihofer & Cook, for Kent County.

Statute and plan declared unconstitutional February 19, 1968. See 9 Mich App 349.

Provision of State Constitution allocating 1 member of county board of supervisors to each township declared unconstitutional.

ON REHEARING.

PER CURIAM:

On the basis of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Avery v. Midland County (1968), 390 US 474 (88 S Ct 1114, 20 L Ed 2d 45), the majority opinion of this Court in this case reported at 9 Mich App 349 is reversed and Const 1963, art 7, § 7, is declared unconstitutional under the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by Avery.

A review of the mandatory guidelines prescribed by PA 1966, No 261, § 4(a) through (h) (CL 1948, § 46.404 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359(4)]), convinces us that they meet Federal standards of apportionment and that they are reasonable and proper. We so hold.

A review of the apportionment plan adopted and filed by the board of supervisors of Ontonagon county convinces us that it meets the requirements of PA 1966, No 261,[*] and we so hold.

T.G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and QUINN, JJ., concurred.

[*] See MCLA § 46.401 et seq. (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.359[1] et seq.). — REPORTER.