OMA violation in Michigan

19 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Nicholas v. Meridian Charter Township Boardgreen michctapp · 2000 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2013–2016 2 sentences 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau	2	3
Herald Co. v. City of Bay Citygreen mich · 2000 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2022–2026 2 sentences 2026Thus, this case is closer to Herald Co v Bay City, 463 Mich 111, 135 ; 614 NW2d 873 (2000) (citation omitted), where it was noted that “the Legislature, by electing not to include individuals in the definition of public body in the OMA, has exempted the city manager from its requirements.” More could be said on the OMA claim, but as the majority notes, Exclusive Cap Partners is currently before our Supreme Court, and additional points need not be repeated in this unpublished, intermediate appellate court concurrence. 2026Thus, this case is closer to Herald Co v Bay City, 463 Mich 111, 135 ; 614 NW2d 873 (2000) (citation omitted), where it was noted that “the Legislature, by electing not to include individuals in the definition of public body in the OMA, has exempted the city manager from its requirements.” More could be said on the OMA claim, but as the majority notes, Exclusive Cap Partners is currently before our Supreme Court, and additional points need not be repeated in this unpublished, intermediate appellate court concurrence.	1	2
Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of Educationgreen michctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See id. 2025See id.	1	1
Federated Publications, Inc v. Michigan State University Board of Trusteesgreen mich · 1999 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021Federated Publications, Inc v Mich State Univ Bd of Trustees, 460 Mich 75, 84 ; 594 NW2d 491 (1999); Detroit Free Press Inc v Univ of Michigan Regents, 315 Mich App 294, 298 ; 889 NW2d 717 (2016). 2021Federated Publications, Inc v Mich State Univ Bd of Trustees, 460 Mich 75, 84 ; 594 NW2d 491 (1999); Detroit Free Press Inc v Univ of Michigan Regents, 315 Mich App 294, 298 ; 889 NW2d 717 (2016).	1	1
McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOTgreen michctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See McNeil-Marks v Midmichigan Med Center-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 16 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016) (noting that, although “[c]ircumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact, . . . mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient”). 2021See McNeil-Marks v Midmichigan Med Center-Gratiot, 316 Mich App 1, 16 ; 891 NW2d 528 (2016) (noting that, although “[c]ircumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact, . . . mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient”).	1	1
Speicher v. Columbia Township Boardgreen michctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015Id.; see Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 303 Mich App 475 ; 843 NW2d 770 (2013). 2015Id.; see Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 303 Mich App 475 ; 843 NW2d 770 (2013).	1	1
Wexford County Prosecutor v. Prangergreen michctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See Wexford Co Prosecutor v Pranger, 83 Mich App 197, 204 ; 268 NW2d 344 (1978) (“Insofar as the declaratory judgment finds the closed session of May 9,1977, in violation of the open meetings statute, we affirm”); Nicholas, 239 Mich App at 535 (“Here, the trial court declared that defendants violated the OMA. 2014See Wexford Co Prosecutor v Pranger, 83 Mich App 197, 204 ; 268 NW2d 344 (1978) (“Insofar as the declaratory judgment finds the closed session of May 9,1977, in violation of the open meetings statute, we affirm”); Nicholas, 239 Mich App at 535 (“Here, the trial court declared that defendants violated the OMA.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Citizens for a Better Algonac Community Schools v. Algonac Community Schools green michctapp · 2016 2 sentences 2025A plaintiff raising an OMA claim has a viable cause of action for injunctive relief when “a public body is not complying with the OMA.” Citizens, 317 Mich App at 181 , citing MCL 15.271(1). 2018INJUNCTIVE RELIEF With respect to injunctive relief, which, as indicated above requires an ongoing OMA violation, the Court in Algonac Community, 317 Mich App at 182-183 , stated: To be clear, we do not find that the “ongoing” requirement of MCL 15.271(1) (“[i]f a public body is not complying with th[e] act”) mandates a showing that a public body, at the time an OMA suit is filed, is in the midst of deliberating a particular matter in violation of the OMA.	4	2018–2025
Speicher v. Columbia Township Board of Trustees green mich · 2014 2 sentences 2018In sum, MCL 15.270 (action to invalidate decision made in violation of the OMA), MCL 15.271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.273 (action for damages for intentional OMA violation) “create[] a three-tiered enforcement scheme for private litigants[.]” Speicher, 497 Mich at 135 . 2018In sum, MCL 15.270 (action to invalidate decision made in violation of the OMA), MCL 15.271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.273 (action for damages for intentional OMA violation) “create[] a three-tiered enforcement scheme for private litigants[.]” Speicher, 497 Mich at 135 .	4	2016–2025
Schmiedicke v. Clare School Board green michctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau	3	2007–2013
Gleason v. Department of Transportation green michctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2006Gleason v Dep’t of Transportation, 256 Mich App 1, 3 ; 662 NW2d 822 (2003). 2006Gleason v Dep’t of Transportation, 256 Mich App 1, 3 ; 662 NW2d 822 (2003).	2	2006–2006
Wilkins v. Gagliardi green michctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2025“Injunctive relief should be granted only when justice requires it, there is no adequate remedy at law, and there exists a real and imminent danger of irreparable harm.” Wilkins v Gagliardi, 219 Mich App 260, 275-276 ; 556 NW2d 171 (1996). 2025“Injunctive relief should be granted only when justice requires it, there is no adequate remedy at law, and there exists a real and imminent danger of irreparable harm.” Wilkins v Gagliardi, 219 Mich App 260, 275-276 ; 556 NW2d 171 (1996).	1	2025–2025
Davis v. City of Detroit Financial Review Team green michctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2024“The Open Meetings Act generally requires ‘decisions’ or ‘deliberations’ of a ‘public body’ to be open to the public.” Davis v Detroit Financial Review Team, 296 Mich App 568, 576 ; 821 NW2d 896 (2012), citing MCL 15.262 and MCL 15.263. 2024“The Open Meetings Act generally requires ‘decisions’ or ‘deliberations’ of a ‘public body’ to be open to the public.” Davis v Detroit Financial Review Team, 296 Mich App 568, 576 ; 821 NW2d 896 (2012), citing MCL 15.262 and MCL 15.263.	1	2024–2024
Detroit Free Press, Inc v. University of Michigan Regents green michctapp · 2016 2 sentences 2021Federated Publications, Inc v Mich State Univ Bd of Trustees, 460 Mich 75, 84 ; 594 NW2d 491 (1999); Detroit Free Press Inc v Univ of Michigan Regents, 315 Mich App 294, 298 ; 889 NW2d 717 (2016). 2021Federated Publications, Inc v Mich State Univ Bd of Trustees, 460 Mich 75, 84 ; 594 NW2d 491 (1999); Detroit Free Press Inc v Univ of Michigan Regents, 315 Mich App 294, 298 ; 889 NW2d 717 (2016).	1	2021–2021
Al-Shimmari v. Detroit Medical Center green mich · 2007 2 sentences 2020We review a trial court’s grant of summary disposition de novo, Al-Shimmari, 477 Mich at 287 , and also review issues of statutory construction de novo. 2020We review a trial court’s grant of summary disposition de novo, Al-Shimmari, 477 Mich at 287 , and also review issues of statutory construction de novo.	1	2020–2020
Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC green mich · 2011 2 sentences 2016This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), as well as issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008). 2016This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), as well as issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008).	1	2016–2016
Estes v. Titus green mich · 2008 2 sentences 2016This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), as well as issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008). 2016This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011), as well as issues of statutory construction, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008).	1	2016–2016
Ridenour v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF DEARBORN SCH. DIST. red michctapp · 1981 2 sentences 2014Ridenour, 111 Mich App at 806 . 2014Ridenour, 111 Mich App at 806 .	1	2014–2014
Leemreis v. Sherman Township green michctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2013After identifying the three requirements for awarding court costs and attorney fees under MCL 15.271(4), id. at 704 , the Court held that the plaintiffs could not obtain attorney fees under the OMA because, even though there was caselaw awarding attorney fees on the mere finding of an OMA violation, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the plain-language requirements of MCL 15.271(4). 2013After identifying the three requirements for awarding court costs and attorney fees under MCL 15.271(4), id. at 704 , the Court held that the plaintiffs could not obtain attorney fees under the OMA because, even though there was caselaw awarding attorney fees on the mere finding of an OMA violation, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the plain-language requirements of MCL 15.271(4).	1	2013–2013
Morrison v. City of East Lansing green michctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau	1	2013–2013
Craig v. Detroit Public Schools Chief Executive Officer green michctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau	1	2013–2013
Manning v. City of East Tawas green michctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau	1	2013–2013
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal green michctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau 2013Speicher moves for reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s opinion in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2013 (Docket No. 306684), which held, despite the violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., by defendants Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Elanning Commission, that “given that the technical nature of this OMA violation resulted in no injunctive relief being warranted, plaintiff is not entitled to any attorney fees or costs under MCL 15.271(4) on remand.” Becau	1	2013–2013
Bolt v. City of Lansing green mich · 1998 2 sentences 2006Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 158 , 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). [4] The court did suspend the collection of fees for a short period, but appellants contend that restitution for the fees collected outside this limited period is necessary. [5] We note that the board may delegate responsibilities to the CEO under MCL 259.114(5). [6] Appellants do not contend that this meeting was not "open" but instead focus their argument on the fact that the CEO initially implemented the CAFs. [7] While the trial court did conclude that an OMA violation had occurred, we note that a trial court's order will 2006Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152, 158 , 587 N.W.2d 264 (1998). [4] The court did suspend the collection of fees for a short period, but appellants contend that restitution for the fees collected outside this limited period is necessary. [5] We note that the board may delegate responsibilities to the CEO under MCL 259.114(5). [6] Appellants do not contend that this meeting was not "open" but instead focus their argument on the fact that the CEO initially implemented the CAFs. [7] While the trial court did conclude that an OMA violation had occurred, we note that a trial court's order will	1	2006–2006

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.261 (18) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270 (15) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271 (15) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.263 (13) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273 (12) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.267 (8) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.268 (8) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.262 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.269 (4) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.232 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.265 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

MI 19 (2006–2026) OH 6 (2016–2025) NM 5 (1996–2025) RI 3 (2005–2025) OK 2 (2023–2023) AK 2 (1985–2010)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check