charter requirement in Michigan

2023Further, the panel reasoned a protest to the GRBOA that was “simply insufficient to meet the charter requirement[s],” was a failure “as a matter of law . . . .” Id. at 723-724 .

2023Id. at 195 .

1994To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied exclusively upon Metro Homes v City of Warren, 19 Mich App 664 ; 173 NW2d 230 (1969), cert den 398 US 959 (1970).

1994To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied exclusively upon Metro Homes v City of Warren, 19 Mich App 664 ; 173 NW2d 230 (1969), cert den 398 US 959 (1970).

1994To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied exclusively upon Metro Homes v City of Warren, 19 Mich App 664 ; 173 NW2d 230 (1969), cert den 398 US 959 (1970).

1994To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied exclusively upon Metro Homes v City of Warren, 19 Mich App 664 ; 173 NW2d 230 (1969), cert den 398 US 959 (1970).

1969The charter requirement, therefore, must stand with the limitation deleted.” On authority of the Northrup Case, supra, and Doyle v. Kammeraad (1945), 310 Mich 233 , this Court holds that the 60-day limitation in chapter 8.9 of defendant city’s charter is in conflict with the statute of limitations and must be held void, bui that the requirement of notice is valid; and it being admitted by plaintiff that no notice was ever given defendant, the trial court’s granting of defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment was proper.

1958For similar facts and a holding in accord with this view, see Perry v. City of High Point, 218 NC714 ( 12 SE2d 275 ).

1958For similar facts and a holding in accord with this view, see Perry v. City of High Point, 218 NC 714 ( 12 SE2d 275 ).

1935That the provision of the charter has no extraterritorial effect but applies only to causes of action arising within the city or to its inhabitants, citing City of Collinsville v. Brickey, 115 Okla. 264 ( 242 Pac. 249 ).

1935That the provision of the charter has no extraterritorial effect but applies only to causes of action arising within the city or to its inhabitants, citing City of Collinsville v. Brickey, 115 Okla. 264 ( 242 Pac. 249 ).

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1908In East Jordan Lumber Co. v. Village of East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, 205 , the rule is stated in this way: “If, on the other hand, the contract be one which it was within the power of the corporation to make, the fact that informalities may be found in the proceedings does not prevent recovery, in a case where, as in the present, the , municipal corporation has had the benefit of performance by the other contracting party, and has from time to time ratified the contract, and audited the bills presented. * * * This rule is, of course, not applicable where express statutory restrictions have been

1887It was held in Flint & Fentonville Plank Road Co. v. Woodhull, 25 Mich. 99 , that the Legislature could not act on such a violation until it had been found judicially on a proper legal prosecution.