opportunity for an evidentiary hearing in Michigan

2023In Eldridge, 424 US at 323-324 , the United States Supreme Court considered whether a state agency may terminate a recipient’s social security disability benefits without affording an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.

2023In Eldridge, 424 US at 323-324 , the United States Supreme Court considered whether a state agency may terminate a recipient’s social security disability benefits without affording an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.

2018However, Chapter 1 of the APA defines “contested case,” in pertinent part, as a proceeding, including . . . licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. [MCL 24.203(3) (emphasis added).] The panel erroneously concluded without explanation that an “opportunity for hearing” includes a public hearing.7 As previously stated, each word and phrase in a 7 South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass’n v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 316 Mich App 265 , 277 n

2018However, Chapter 1 of the APA defines “contested case,” in pertinent part, as a proceeding, including . . . licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. [MCL 24.203(3) (emphasis added).] The panel erroneously concluded without explanation that an “opportunity for hearing” includes a public hearing.7 As previously stated, each word and phrase in a 7 South Dearborn Environmental Improvement Ass’n v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 316 Mich App 265 , 277 n

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.

1980Wolff v McDonnel, 418 US 539 ; 94 S Ct 2963 ; 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974), Wong Yang Sung v McGrath, 339 US 33 ; 70 S Ct 445 ; 94 L Ed 616 (1950).” Id., 171.

1980Wolff v McDonnel, 418 US 539 ; 94 S Ct 2963 ; 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974), Wong Yang Sung v McGrath, 339 US 33 ; 70 S Ct 445 ; 94 L Ed 616 (1950).” Id., 171.

1980Wolff v McDonnel, 418 US 539 ; 94 S Ct 2963 ; 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974), Wong Yang Sung v McGrath, 339 US 33 ; 70 S Ct 445 ; 94 L Ed 616 (1950).” Id., 171.

1980Wolff v McDonnel, 418 US 539 ; 94 S Ct 2963 ; 41 L Ed 2d 935 (1974), Wong Yang Sung v McGrath, 339 US 33 ; 70 S Ct 445 ; 94 L Ed 616 (1950).” Id., 171.

2023Williams v Williams, 214 Mich App 391, 399 ; 542 NW2d 892 (1995).

2023Williams v Williams, 214 Mich App 391, 399 ; 542 NW2d 892 (1995).

2023Mich Charitable Gaming Ass’n v Michigan, 310 Mich App 584, 592 ; 873 NW2d 827 (2015). 3 A contested case is “a proceeding, including rate-making, price-fixing, and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” MCL 24.203(3).

2017Id. -3- agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” MCL 24.203(3).

2014These APA provisions set forth specific procedures for a “contested case,” that is, “ ‘a proceeding . . . in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.’ ” In re Parole of Elias, 294 Mich App 507 , 537 n 24; 811 NW2d 541 (2011), quoting MCL 24.203(3).

2014These APA provisions set forth specific procedures for a “contested case,” that is, “ ‘a proceeding . . . in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.’ ” In re Parole of Elias, 294 Mich App 507 , 537 n 24; 811 NW2d 541 (2011), quoting MCL 24.203(3).

1993The foia, § ll(l)(a), 10 requires state agencies to "publish and make available to the public all of the following: (a) Final orders or decisions in contested cases and the records on which they were made.” The foia does not define the term "contested case,” but defers to the term’s meaning as ascribed in the apa, chapters 1 through 7. 11 The apa, chapter 1, defines "[contested case” as "a proceeding, ... in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” 12 The hearin

1993The foia, § ll(l)(a), 10 requires state agencies to "publish and make available to the public all of the following: (a) Final orders or decisions in contested cases and the records on which they were made.” The foia does not define the term "contested case,” but defers to the term’s meaning as ascribed in the apa, chapters 1 through 7. 11 The apa, chapter 1, defines "[contested case” as "a proceeding, ... in which a determination of the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” 12 The hearin

1986In the prior appeal of this case, Kassab, supra, pp 449-453, this Court held that § 106 of the Administrative Procedures Act [2] governed, since the licensing matter was a "contested case", defined by MCL 24.203; MSA 3.560(103)(3) as: "`[A] proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price-fixing, and licensing, in which determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.'" The scope of review in the earlier opinion, however, *109 conflicts with this Court's decision in TD

1986In the prior appeal of this case, Kassab, supra, pp 449-453, this Court held that § 106 of the Administrative Procedures Act [2] governed, since the licensing matter was a "contested case", defined by MCL 24.203; MSA 3.560(103)(3) as: "`[A] proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price-fixing, and licensing, in which determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.'" The scope of review in the earlier opinion, however, *109 conflicts with this Court's decision in TD

1979Section 3 of the APA defines "contested case” as follows: "(3) 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be *171 made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” Under generally recognized principles of statutory construction, when there is no necessity to reconcile conflicting statutes, Wayne County Civil Service Comm v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363 ; 184 NW2d 201 (1971), when there is no absence of a

1979Section 3 of the APA defines "contested case” as follows: "(3) 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be *171 made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” Under generally recognized principles of statutory construction, when there is no necessity to reconcile conflicting statutes, Wayne County Civil Service Comm v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363 ; 184 NW2d 201 (1971), when there is no absence of a

1979Section 3 of the APA defines "contested case” as follows: "(3) 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be *171 made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” Under generally recognized principles of statutory construction, when there is no necessity to reconcile conflicting statutes, Wayne County Civil Service Comm v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363 ; 184 NW2d 201 (1971), when there is no absence of a

1979Section 3 of the APA defines "contested case” as follows: "(3) 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be *171 made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” Under generally recognized principles of statutory construction, when there is no necessity to reconcile conflicting statutes, Wayne County Civil Service Comm v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363 ; 184 NW2d 201 (1971), when there is no absence of a

1979Section 3 of the APA defines "contested case” as follows: "(3) 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be *171 made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” Under generally recognized principles of statutory construction, when there is no necessity to reconcile conflicting statutes, Wayne County Civil Service Comm v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363 ; 184 NW2d 201 (1971), when there is no absence of a

1979Section 3 of the APA defines "contested case” as follows: "(3) 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of a named party is required by law to be *171 made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.” Under generally recognized principles of statutory construction, when there is no necessity to reconcile conflicting statutes, Wayne County Civil Service Comm v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363 ; 184 NW2d 201 (1971), when there is no absence of a

1976Bisco’s then filed this complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. 5 That Court declined 6 to order the village to withdraw its objection or the commission to renew the license. 7 We conclude that a liquor licensee has a property interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 8 and, accordingly, an application for renewal of a liquor license cannot be denied without providing the licensee notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. *714 We would remand this case to the commission for consideration of the merits of any objections to the renewal of Bisco’s liquor license an

1976Bisco’s then filed this complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. 5 That Court declined 6 to order the village to withdraw its objection or the commission to renew the license. 7 We conclude that a liquor licensee has a property interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 8 and, accordingly, an application for renewal of a liquor license cannot be denied without providing the licensee notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. *714 We would remand this case to the commission for consideration of the merits of any objections to the renewal of Bisco’s liquor license an

1976Bisco’s then filed this complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. 5 That Court declined 6 to order the village to withdraw its objection or the commission to renew the license. 7 We conclude that a liquor licensee has a property interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 8 and, accordingly, an application for renewal of a liquor license cannot be denied without providing the licensee notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. *714 We would remand this case to the commission for consideration of the merits of any objections to the renewal of Bisco’s liquor license an

1976Bisco’s then filed this complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. 5 That Court declined 6 to order the village to withdraw its objection or the commission to renew the license. 7 We conclude that a liquor licensee has a property interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 8 and, accordingly, an application for renewal of a liquor license cannot be denied without providing the licensee notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. *714 We would remand this case to the commission for consideration of the merits of any objections to the renewal of Bisco’s liquor license an

1976Bisco’s then filed this complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. 5 That Court declined 6 to order the village to withdraw its objection or the commission to renew the license. 7 We conclude that a liquor licensee has a property interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 8 and, accordingly, an application for renewal of a liquor license cannot be denied without providing the licensee notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. *714 We would remand this case to the commission for consideration of the merits of any objections to the renewal of Bisco’s liquor license an

1976Bisco’s then filed this complaint for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. 5 That Court declined 6 to order the village to withdraw its objection or the commission to renew the license. 7 We conclude that a liquor licensee has a property interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause 8 and, accordingly, an application for renewal of a liquor license cannot be denied without providing the licensee notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. *714 We would remand this case to the commission for consideration of the merits of any objections to the renewal of Bisco’s liquor license an

1974If plaintiff had filed its suit within the time requirements prescribed by MSA 3.560(204), or in the alternative by the requirements prescribed by GCR 705.3, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment would be promptly granted, the referendum would be voided, and the constitutional issues raised by plaintiff’s complaint would be moot by virtue of Dukesherer v Director of the Department of Agriculture, 16 Mich App 656 (1969).” *493 A contested case is defined in the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 as: " 'Contested case’ means a proceeding, including but not limited to rate-making, price-fixi