Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 11 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 11.5 (2026)

Deputy secretary of state; appointment, duties, salary.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Revised Statutes of 1846


R.S. of 1846


11.5 Deputy secretary of state; appointment, duties, salary.

Sec. 5.

    The secretary of state may appoint a deputy, and revoke such appointment at pleasure; and whenever the secretary of state shall, by reason of sickness, absence, or other cause, be disabled from executing the duties of his office, his deputy, duly appointed, shall execute the duties thereof until such disability be removed or until a secretary shall be appointed, and such deputy shall receive such salary as the secretary of state shall recommend, and as the legislature shall appropriate, payable monthly from the general fund in the state treasury, in the same manner that the salaries of other state officers are paid.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 12 ;-- CL 1857, 144 ;-- CL 1871, 209 ;-- How. 263 ;-- CL 1897, 69 ;-- Am. 1907, Act 156, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1907 ;-- CL 1915, 94 ;-- CL 1929, 126 ;-- Am. 1933, Act 22, Imd. Eff. Feb. 28, 1933 ;-- CL 1948, 11.5

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: People v. Dennany, 519 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Dennany, 519 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “[2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure, § 11.5, p 47.] This approach is consistent with that taken in Anderson , in which this Court held that although "the trial court did not explicitly inform defendant Overby of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation .”
People v. Richards, 891 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “3 LaFave, Israel & King, Criminal Procedure (2d ed), § 11.5(d), pp 582-584. In People v Hill, 485 Mich 912, 912 (2009), our Supreme Court held that the trial court’s decision “denying [a] request for self-representation ‘at this time’ did not deny [the] defendant his…”
Troppi v. Scarf, 187 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “8 Prosser, Torts (3d ed), § 4, p 23; 2 Harper and James, Torts, § 11.5, p 742. 9 Burtraw v. Clark (1894), 103 Mich 383 ; 22 Am Jur 2d, Damages, § 204, p 283; McCormick, Damages, § 40, p 146.”
Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Babin, 799 F. Supp. 695 (E.D. Mich. 1992). “Schwemm § 11.5(3)(a). In other words, reverse discrimination, forbidden under the terms of § 3604(a), is permissible under § 3604(f)(1).”
Clonlara, Inc. v. Runkel, 722 F. Supp. 1442 (E.D. Mich. 1989). “The Supreme Court has found that certain rights are so essential to guarantee *1456 ing individual liberty in our society that any government conduct regulating such conduct will be subject to a strict standard of review.”
Gougeon Bros., Inc. v. Hendricks, 708 F. Supp. 811 (E.D. Mich. 1988). “McCarthy, Trade-marks and Unfair Competition § 11.5 (2d ed. 1984)). Under these analytical strictures, plaintiff cannot possibly assert a claim for broad relief enjoining System Three from using the general term of “WEST.”
Veh. Dev. Corp. Pty Ltd. v. Livernois Veh. Dev., LLC, 995 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “Gilmore, Security Interests in Personal Property, § 11.5 at 353 (1965) (“[T]he secured party will get whatever rights the debtor had.”
Howmet Aerospace, Inc. v. Corrigan (W.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “) Defendants based their intention on the arbitration provision, Section 11.5 of the plan. (Id.) Two motions followed the notice of intent to arbitrate.”
Julia Kinsey v. Cnty. of Wayne (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “-2- added these two claims, as well as a third claim alleging that Johnson used excessive force in violation of Const 1963, art 1, § 11.5 Wayne County moved for summary disposition of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint under MCR 2.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 11.5(3)(a): 1 case
Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Babin, 799 F. Supp. 695 (E.D. Mich. 1992). “Schwemm § 11.5(3)(a). In other words, reverse discrimination, forbidden under the terms of § 3604(a), is permissible under § 3604(f)(1).”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 11.5(d): 1 case
People v. Richards, 891 N.W.2d 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “3 LaFave, Israel & King, Criminal Procedure (2d ed), § 11.5(d), pp 582-584. In People v Hill, 485 Mich 912, 912 (2009), our Supreme Court held that the trial court’s decision “denying [a] request for self-representation ‘at this time’ did not deny [the] defendant his…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.