contested case hearing in Michigan

2020In Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 30, 2015 (Docket Nos. 317434 and 317456), [rev’d in part on other grounds 498 Mich 967 (2016)], this Court, in Docket No. 317456, remanded the matter to the [M]PSC to conduct a contested-case hearing to examine the opt-out tariff.

2018In Attorney General v Pub Serv Comm, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 30, 2015 (Docket Nos. 317434 and 317456), [rev’d in part on other grounds 498 Mich 967 (2016)], this Court, in Docket No. 317456, remanded the matter to the PSC to conduct a contested-case hearing to examine the opt-out tariff.

2005In Bois Blanc Island Twp. v. Natural Resources Comm., 158 Mich.App. 239, 244 , 404 N.W.2d 719 (1987), this Court observed that the contested-case provisions of the APA do not apply to the issuance of initial permits by the Department of Natural Resources unless specifically required by statute.

2005In Bois Blanc Island Twp. v. Natural Resources Comm., 158 Mich.App. 239, 244 , 404 N.W.2d 719 (1987), this Court observed that the contested-case provisions of the APA do not apply to the issuance of initial permits by the Department of Natural Resources unless specifically required by statute.

2025A party aggrieved by an action of the board denying, suspending, revoking, 51 Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 647 ; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (citation omitted). 23 restricting, or refusing to renew a license may request a contested case hearing before the board under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306 , MCL 24.201 to 24.328.

2025A party aggrieved by an action of the board denying, suspending, revoking, 51 Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 647 ; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (citation omitted). 23 restricting, or refusing to renew a license may request a contested case hearing before the board under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306 , MCL 24.201 to 24.328.

2025Indeed, to read the sections as allowing a person to contest literally any action or inaction of the department would 5 MCL 324.32723(12) states: A person who is aggrieved by a determination of the department under this section related to a water withdrawal permit may file a sworn petition with the department setting forth the grounds and reasons for the complaint and asking for a contested case hearing on the matter pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306 , MCL 24.201 to 24.328. 6 MCL 324.3113(3) states: If the permit or denial of a new or increased use is not accep

2025Indeed, to read the sections as allowing a person to contest literally any action or inaction of the department would 5 MCL 324.32723(12) states: A person who is aggrieved by a determination of the department under this section related to a water withdrawal permit may file a sworn petition with the department setting forth the grounds and reasons for the complaint and asking for a contested case hearing on the matter pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306 , MCL 24.201 to 24.328. 6 MCL 324.3113(3) states: If the permit or denial of a new or increased use is not accep

2024They argued that the conditions were procedurally invalid because they were actually “rules” under the APA and because EGLE had not processed them in compliance with the APA’s rulemaking procedures. 18 They also argued that the new discretionary permit conditions exceeded 18 Because a rule alters rights or imposes obligations on society or an open-ended class, the APA prescribes “an elaborate procedure for rule promulgation.” Detroit Base Coalition for Human Rights of Handicapped v Dep’t of Social Servs, 431 Mich 172, 177 ; 428 NW2d 335 (1988).

2024They argued that the conditions were procedurally invalid because they were actually “rules” under the APA and because EGLE had not processed them in compliance with the APA’s rulemaking procedures. 18 They also argued that the new discretionary permit conditions exceeded 18 Because a rule alters rights or imposes obligations on society or an open-ended class, the APA prescribes “an elaborate procedure for rule promulgation.” Detroit Base Coalition for Human Rights of Handicapped v Dep’t of Social Servs, 431 Mich 172, 177 ; 428 NW2d 335 (1988).

2022Further, we recently declared that the distinction between standing and aggrieved-party status “is of no consequence because[,] . . . although the former governs the right to bring suit and the latter to the right to appellate review of an administrative decision[,] . . . in either case, a particularized and concrete injury must be shown.” Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd of Appeals, ___ Mich App at ___ n 7 (Docket No. 357209); slip op at 8 n 7. -3- orders applying existing rules to the specific facts determined through a contested-case hearing.” In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App 454, 462 ;

2022Further, we recently declared that the distinction between standing and aggrieved-party status “is of no consequence because[,] . . . although the former governs the right to bring suit and the latter to the right to appellate review of an administrative decision[,] . . . in either case, a particularized and concrete injury must be shown.” Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd of Appeals, ___ Mich App at ___ n 7 (Docket No. 357209); slip op at 8 n 7. -3- orders applying existing rules to the specific facts determined through a contested-case hearing.” In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App 454, 462 ;

2022EGLE moved for summary disposition on the ground that the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. 4 See also Mich Admin Code, R 323.2192(c) which provides in relevant part that a “person who is aggrieved by the coverage may file a sworn petition for a contested case hearing on the matter with” EGLE in accordance with MCL 324.3113. -9- The Court of Claims relied on Jones v Dep’t of Corrections, 185 Mich App 134 , 460 NW2d 575 (1990)5 for the proposition that only rules that have been formally promulgated as “rules” u

2022EGLE moved for summary disposition on the ground that the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. 4 See also Mich Admin Code, R 323.2192(c) which provides in relevant part that a “person who is aggrieved by the coverage may file a sworn petition for a contested case hearing on the matter with” EGLE in accordance with MCL 324.3113. -9- The Court of Claims relied on Jones v Dep’t of Corrections, 185 Mich App 134 , 460 NW2d 575 (1990)5 for the proposition that only rules that have been formally promulgated as “rules” u

2017Judicial review . . . is limited in scope to a determination whether the action of the agency was authorized by law.” (Emphasis added)); Wescott v Civil Serv Comm, 298 Mich App 158, 161 ; 825 NW2d 674 (2012) (adopting the assertions in Ross and Brandon).

2017Judicial review . . . is limited in scope to a determination whether the action of the agency was authorized by law.” (Emphasis added)); Wescott v Civil Serv Comm, 298 Mich App 158, 161 ; 825 NW2d 674 (2012) (adopting the assertions in Ross and Brandon).

2014Id. at 727-728 .

2011Following the hearing, the SERSB issued a decision and order emphasizing that “no doctor has opined that [Monroe] is totally and permanently disabled.” The SERSB further observed that “every doctor who has examined [Monroe] has concluded that her condition could improve with proper treatment.” 2 The SERSB concluded, “Given that no medical advisor has certified that [Monroe] is totally and permanently dis abled, the Board does not have the discretion to find her so disabled.” Monroe then sought circuit court review of the SERSB’s denial of disability retirement benefits, and that court affirmed

2011Following the hearing, the SERSB issued a decision and order emphasizing that “no doctor has opined that [Monroe] is totally and permanently disabled.” The SERSB further observed that “every doctor who has examined [Monroe] has concluded that her condition could improve with proper treatment.” 2 The SERSB concluded, “Given that no medical advisor has certified that [Monroe] is totally and permanently dis abled, the Board does not have the discretion to find her so disabled.” Monroe then sought circuit court review of the SERSB’s denial of disability retirement benefits, and that court affirmed

2009Affirmed. 1 Mich Admin Code, R 336.2830. 2 Mich Admin Code, R 336.2801(jj). 3 42 USC 7470 et seq. 4 McNeil v Charlevoix Co, 275 Mich App 686, 691 ; 741 NW2d 27 (2007), aff’d 484 Mich 69 (2009).

2009Affirmed. 1 Mich Admin Code, R 336.2830. 2 Mich Admin Code, R 336.2801(jj). 3 42 USC 7470 et seq. 4 McNeil v Charlevoix Co, 275 Mich App 686, 691 ; 741 NW2d 27 (2007), aff’d 484 Mich 69 (2009).

2009Affirmed. 1 Mich Admin Code, R 336.2830. 2 Mich Admin Code, R 336.2801(jj). 3 42 USC 7470 et seq. 4 McNeil v Charlevoix Co, 275 Mich App 686, 691 ; 741 NW2d 27 (2007), aff’d 484 Mich 69 (2009).

2006Because the commissioner's findings and conclusions went far beyond what was necessary to simply deny petitioners' request for a contested-case hearing under MCL 500.2028 and 500.2029, I can only conclude that such findings were made pursuant to his authority under MCL 500.2236. [5] As we noted in Taylor, supra at 8-9 , 658 N.W.2d 127 : A simple statement of this doctrine is found in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 , 12 S.Ct. 495 , 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892), in which the United States Supreme Court explained that "the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constituti

2006Because the commissioner's findings and conclusions went far beyond what was necessary to simply deny petitioners' request for a contested-case hearing under MCL 500.2028 and 500.2029, I can only conclude that such findings were made pursuant to his authority under MCL 500.2236. [5] As we noted in Taylor, supra at 8-9 , 658 N.W.2d 127 : A simple statement of this doctrine is found in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 , 12 S.Ct. 495 , 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892), in which the United States Supreme Court explained that "the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constituti

2006Because the commissioner's findings and conclusions went far beyond what was necessary to simply deny petitioners' request for a contested-case hearing under MCL 500.2028 and 500.2029, I can only conclude that such findings were made pursuant to his authority under MCL 500.2236. [5] As we noted in Taylor, supra at 8-9 , 658 N.W.2d 127 : A simple statement of this doctrine is found in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 , 12 S.Ct. 495 , 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892), in which the United States Supreme Court explained that "the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constituti

2006Because the commissioner's findings and conclusions went far beyond what was necessary to simply deny petitioners' request for a contested-case hearing under MCL 500.2028 and 500.2029, I can only conclude that such findings were made pursuant to his authority under MCL 500.2236. [5] As we noted in Taylor, supra at 8-9 , 658 N.W.2d 127 : A simple statement of this doctrine is found in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692 , 12 S.Ct. 495 , 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892), in which the United States Supreme Court explained that "the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constituti

1996Attorney General, supra. We are unpersuaded by Michigan Bell’s argument that the psc’s May 21, 1993, remand order and subsequent notice of hearing affirmatively misled Michigan Bell into believing that the psc would be considering only implementation of intraLATA dialing parity "if and when” the interLATA relief requested by Michigan Bell’s parent company is granted by federal authorities.