delegation doctrine (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

delegation doctrine in Michigan

13 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2020 0 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
City of Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'ngreen
mich · 1980 · cited in 6 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003Though not specifically mandated by any constitutional provision, this prohibition arises from the basic structure of the government." [7] See Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 408 Mich. 410, 458, n. 29 , 294 N.W.2d 68 (1980) (Opinion by Williams, J.): Perhaps the most concise description of the delegation doctrine was enunciated in the seminal case of Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. 491, 498-499 (1873): "The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its o

2003Though not specifically mandated by any constitutional provision, this prohibition arises from the basic structure of the government." [7] See Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 408 Mich. 410, 458, n. 29 , 294 N.W.2d 68 (1980) (Opinion by Williams, J.): Perhaps the most concise description of the delegation doctrine was enunciated in the seminal case of Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. 491, 498-499 (1873): "The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its o

66
People v. Ericksengreen
michctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 23 Wang, 503 Mich at 987. 24 MCL 400.601 et seq. 10 present or cause to be made or presented to an employee or officer of this state a claim under the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280 , MCL 400.1 to 400.119b, upon or against the state, knowing the claim to be false.”25 To sustain a conviction for Medicaid fraud, the prosecution must therefore prove: (1) the existence of a claim, (2) that the accused makes,

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 23 Wang, 503 Mich at 987. 24 MCL 400.601 et seq. 10 present or cause to be made or presented to an employee or officer of this state a claim under the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280 , MCL 400.1 to 400.119b, upon or against the state, knowing the claim to be false.”25 To sustain a conviction for Medicaid fraud, the prosecution must therefore prove: (1) the existence of a claim, (2) that the accused makes,

11
Marran v. Bairdgreen
ri · 1994 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020In Gundy, for example, the plurality thought it relevant to the delegation analysis in that case that the statute accorded the executive “only temporary authority.” Gundy, 588 US at ___; 139 S Ct at 2130; see also United States v Touby, 909 F2d 759, 767 (CA 3, 1990) (“[I]t was reasonable for Congress to broadly delegate special authority to 26 the Attorney General, particularly when the delegation permits scheduling to be effective only for a limited period of time.”); United States v Emerson, 846 F2d 541, 545 (CA 9, 1988) (upholding delegation because, in part, the delegated power was tempora

11
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Connallygreen
dcd · 1971 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020In Gundy, for example, the plurality thought it relevant to the delegation analysis in that case that the statute accorded the executive “only temporary authority.” Gundy, 588 US at ___; 139 S Ct at 2130; see also United States v Touby, 909 F2d 759, 767 (CA 3, 1990) (“[I]t was reasonable for Congress to broadly delegate special authority to 26 the Attorney General, particularly when the delegation permits scheduling to be effective only for a limited period of time.”); United States v Emerson, 846 F2d 541, 545 (CA 9, 1988) (upholding delegation because, in part, the delegated power was tempora

11
Gundy v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 2019 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020In Gundy, for example, the plurality thought it relevant to the delegation analysis in that case that the statute accorded the executive “only temporary authority.” Gundy, 588 US at ___; 139 S Ct at 2130; see also United States v Touby, 909 F2d 759, 767 (CA 3, 1990) (“[I]t was reasonable for Congress to broadly delegate special authority to 26 the Attorney General, particularly when the delegation permits scheduling to be effective only for a limited period of time.”); United States v Emerson, 846 F2d 541, 545 (CA 9, 1988) (upholding delegation because, in part, the delegated power was tempora

11
Commonwealth ex rel. McClain v. Lockegreen
pa · 1873 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003Though not specifically mandated by any constitutional provision, this prohibition arises from the basic structure of the government." [7] See Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 408 Mich. 410, 458, n. 29 , 294 N.W.2d 68 (1980) (Opinion by Williams, J.): Perhaps the most concise description of the delegation doctrine was enunciated in the seminal case of Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. 491, 498-499 (1873): "The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its o

11
State v. Stoddardgreen
conn · 1940 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980But the court, also relying on the lead opinion in Dearborn Fire Fighters, additionally held: "The arbitration scheme in question, insulating the arbitration panel from the electorate and representatives of the electorate, contravenes [Conn Const] Article Second, Article Third, § 1 [providing that the legislative power is vested in the legislative branch] and the delegation doctrine set forth in [State v Stoddard, 126 Conn 623, 628; 13 A2d 586 (1940), articulating the traditional 'intelligible principle’ formulation of the delegation doctrine].

1980But the court, also relying on the lead opinion in Dearborn Fire Fighters, additionally held: "The arbitration scheme in question, insulating the arbitration panel from the electorate and representatives of the electorate, contravenes [Conn Const] Article Second, Article Third, § 1 [providing that the legislative power is vested in the legislative branch] and the delegation doctrine set forth in [State v Stoddard, 126 Conn 623, 628; 13 A2d 586 (1940), articulating the traditional 'intelligible principle’ formulation of the delegation doctrine].

11
City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, International Ass'n of Fire Fightersgreen
minn · 1979 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980Citation of additional constitutional texts should be unnecessary, since the accountability argument is but a statement of what must be shown for the delegation doctrine to be satisfied. [90] Richfield v Local No 1215, supra, p 47. [91] Significantly, the court seems to have recognized the political unresponsiveness of the process, for it went on to find "a pragmatic reason for the legislature's removal of the arbitrators from the immediate pressures of public opinion" because "the parties must feel confident that the panel will listen to their positions, weigh the evidence, consider the panel

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Governor green
mich · 1985
2 sentences

2020Rather, we adopted the new position because we deemed the “standards” test to reflect the “essential purpose of the delegation doctrine” and because we better liked the consequences of this new test, i.e., that the Legislature could gather “the resources and expertise of agencies and individuals to assist the formulation and execution of legislative policy.” Id.

2003However, to comport with the delegation doctrine, Const 1963, art 4, § 1, and the separation of powers doctrine, Const 1963, art 3, § 2, the legislative grant of authority must include standards that sufficiently check the exercise of delegated power — that are as precise as the subject matter permits considering its complexity — yet allow the Legislature to “avail itself of the resources and expertise of agencies and individuals to assist the formulation and execution of legislative policy.” Taylor v Gate Pharmaceuticals, 248 Mich App 472, 478 ; 639 NW2d 45 (2001), quoting Blue Cross & Blue S

22003–2020
Westervelt v. Natural Resources Commission green
mich · 1978
2 sentences

2000In Michigan, the delegation doctrine provides that the Legislature may delegate power that is legislative in nature but may not delegate the ability to create “legislation.” Id.

2000In Michigan, the delegation doctrine provides that the Legislature may delegate power that is legislative in nature but may not delegate the ability to create "legislation." Id.

21979–2000
In Re Wayne County Prosecutor green
michctapp · 1982
2 sentences

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 23 Wang, 503 Mich at 987. 24 MCL 400.601 et seq. 10 present or cause to be made or presented to an employee or officer of this state a claim under the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280 , MCL 400.1 to 400.119b, upon or against the state, knowing the claim to be false.”25 To sustain a conviction for Medicaid fraud, the prosecution must therefore prove: (1) the existence of a claim, (2) that the accused makes,

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 23 Wang, 503 Mich at 987. 24 MCL 400.601 et seq. 10 present or cause to be made or presented to an employee or officer of this state a claim under the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280 , MCL 400.1 to 400.119b, upon or against the state, knowing the claim to be false.”25 To sustain a conviction for Medicaid fraud, the prosecution must therefore prove: (1) the existence of a claim, (2) that the accused makes,

12020–2020
People v. Orzame green
michctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 23 Wang, 503 Mich at 987. 24 MCL 400.601 et seq. 10 present or cause to be made or presented to an employee or officer of this state a claim under the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280 , MCL 400.1 to 400.119b, upon or against the state, knowing the claim to be false.”25 To sustain a conviction for Medicaid fraud, the prosecution must therefore prove: (1) the existence of a claim, (2) that the accused makes,

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010) (“Failing to advance a meritless argument or raise a futile objection does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”). 23 Wang, 503 Mich at 987. 24 MCL 400.601 et seq. 10 present or cause to be made or presented to an employee or officer of this state a claim under the social welfare act, 1939 PA 280 , MCL 400.1 to 400.119b, upon or against the state, knowing the claim to be false.”25 To sustain a conviction for Medicaid fraud, the prosecution must therefore prove: (1) the existence of a claim, (2) that the accused makes,

12020–2020
Taylor v. Gate Pharmaceuticals green
michctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2003However, to comport with the delegation doctrine, Const 1963, art 4, § 1, and the separation of powers doctrine, Const 1963, art 3, § 2, the legislative grant of authority must include standards that sufficiently check the exercise of delegated power — that are as precise as the subject matter permits considering its complexity — yet allow the Legislature to “avail itself of the resources and expertise of agencies and individuals to assist the formulation and execution of legislative policy.” Taylor v Gate Pharmaceuticals, 248 Mich App 472, 478 ; 639 NW2d 45 (2001), quoting Blue Cross & Blue S

2003However, to comport with the delegation doctrine, Const 1963, art 4, § 1, and the separation of powers doctrine, Const 1963, art 3, § 2, the legislative grant of authority must include standards that sufficiently check the exercise of delegated power — that are as precise as the subject matter permits considering its complexity — yet allow the Legislature to “avail itself of the resources and expertise of agencies and individuals to assist the formulation and execution of legislative policy.” Taylor v Gate Pharmaceuticals, 248 Mich App 472, 478 ; 639 NW2d 45 (2001), quoting Blue Cross & Blue S

12003–2003
Marbury v. Madison green
· 1803
2 sentences

1980But ours has been 'termed a government of laws, and not of men.’ Marbury v Madison, [ 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 163 ; 2 L Ed 60, 69 ] (1803).” (Emphasis supplied.) 28 HH HH In Dearborn Fire Fighters we said that Act 312 was violative of the delegation doctrine "because it is designed to insulate and, in fact, does insulate the decision-making process and the results from accountability within the political process”. 29 We adhere to that view.

1980But ours has been 'termed a government of laws, and not of men.’ Marbury v Madison, [ 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 163 ; 2 L Ed 60, 69 ] (1803).” (Emphasis supplied.) 28 HH HH In Dearborn Fire Fighters we said that Act 312 was violative of the delegation doctrine "because it is designed to insulate and, in fact, does insulate the decision-making process and the results from accountability within the political process”. 29 We adhere to that view.

11980–1980
People v. Collins green
· 1854
2 sentences

1980To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government." As in Plato's allegory of the cave, since 1854 in People v Collins, 3 Mich 343 (1854), this Court has intermittently struggled to distinguish the shadows from the light surrounding the question posed in Locke's Appeal whether the Legislature may delegate authority to a subordinate body of non-elected individuals.

1980To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government.” As in Plato’s allegory of the cave, since 1854 in People v Collins, 3 Mich 343 (1854), this Court has intermittently struggled to distinguish the shadows from the light surrounding the question posed in Locke’s Appeal whether the Legislature may delegate authority to a subordinate body of non-elected individuals.

11980–1980
People v. Buskirk green
michctapp · 1972
2 sentences

1978Ill In People v Wilde, 42 Mich App 514 ; 202 NW2d 542 (1972), defendant, with the assistance of a "cooperative” insurance adjuster, inflated his estimate of the cost of repairing an automobile more than $400 over the actual cost of the repairs and was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses. 16 This Court reversed the conviction because, since the insurance company knew that defendant’s estimate contained misrepresentations, the element of reliance by the victim was absent.

1978Ill In People v Wilde, 42 Mich App 514 ; 202 NW2d 542 (1972), defendant, with the assistance of a "cooperative” insurance adjuster, inflated his estimate of the cost of repairing an automobile more than $400 over the actual cost of the repairs and was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses. 16 This Court reversed the conviction because, since the insurance company knew that defendant’s estimate contained misrepresentations, the element of reliance by the victim was absent.

11978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.544c (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.720 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.25 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 290.603 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.953 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2946 (6) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.201 (4)

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

CA 81 (1961–2026) TX 35 (1958–2026) NM 21 (1980–2025) MO 18 (1979–2023) NJ 13 (1993–2026) MI 13 (1978–2020) IL 11 (1938–2025) NY 10 (2002–2025) FL 10 (1942–2019) WV 9 (2015–2021) PA 8 (1965–2022) DE 8 (2020–2026) MD 6 (1987–2013) CT 5 (1992–2024) NV 5 (2010–2023) SC 5 (1946–2025) WA 5 (1983–2014) OH 4 (1988–2024) NC 4 (1996–2026) NE 4 (1980–2018) VT 4 (1999–2026) WI 4 (1984–2025) OR 4 (2023–2026) TN 4 (1976–2020) LA 3 (1942–1994) CO 3 (1981–2025) AK 3 (1987–1996) MT 2 (2013–2016) ME 2 (1981–2015) KS 2 (1995–2008) IN 2 (2002–2016) MS 2 (2019–2020) MN 2 (1984–1984) GA 2 (2018–2018)

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