Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 117 / Act 279 of 1909
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.1 (2026)

Body corporate.

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

THE HOME RULE CITY ACT


Act 279 of 1909


117.1 Body corporate.

Sec. 1.

    Each organized city shall be a body corporate.

History: 1909, Act 279, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- CL 1915, 3304 ;-- CL 1929, 2228 ;-- CL 1948, 117.1

Constitutionality Notes:

    1911 PA 203, which amended the title of this act and MCL 117.2, 117.4, 117.5, 117.18, 117.19, 117.20, 117.21, 117.25, and 117.28, and which added MCL 117.37, was held unconstitutional in its entirety in Gallup v Saginaw, 170 Mich 195; 135 NW 1060 (1912). See also Attorney General v Detroit, 168 Mich 249; 133 NW 1090 (1912); Common Council of Detroit v Engel, 187 Mich 88; 153 NW 537 (1915).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 149 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 10× “First, we must address whether a single detachment petition and a single vote on that petition, pursuant to the terms of the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1 et seq., may encompass territory to be detached from one city and added to more than one township.”
Shari Guertin v. State of Mich., 912 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “14 The import of Michigan’s Constitution and its Home Rule City Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.1 , et seq., is that “if a municipality is supplying a utility, or specifically waterworks, to its citizens and the citizens are paying for the same, the municipality is operating the…”
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Sec'y of State, 921 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 3× “, and that discussion was unnecessary to resolving the case, and Pontiac Sch Dist summarily rejected the argument that a proposed amendment amounted to a revision without any discussion of the text of the governing constitutional provision or citation of any authority.”
Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc v. City of Hamtramck, 604 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 8× “[3] MCL 117.1 et seq.; MSA 5.2071 et seq. [4] The Headlee Amendment added the emphasized language.”
Rental Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Grand Rapids, 566 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 117.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 5.2071 et seq. It provides in relevant part: For the exercise of all municipal powers in the management and control of municipal property and in the administration of the municipal government, whether such powers be expressly enumerated or not, for any…”
City of Detroit v. Walker, 520 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 4× “The act also provides *689 for the revision of existing city charters and the creation of a charter commission, and defines the powers and duties of such a commission.”
Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Detroit, 537 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 4× “A city receives its self-governing authority through the home rule cities act, MCL 117.1 et seq.; MSA 5.2071 et seq. In this case, that authority is contained in the Detroit City Charter.”
City of Novi v. Robert Adell Child.'s Funded Trust, 701 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “Defendants' challenge to the proposed taking was made pursuant to M.C.L. § 213.56, which allows the owner of the property to be taken "to challenge the necessity of acquisition of all or part of the property for the purposes stated in the complaint" by filing a motion asking…”
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v. City of Ferndale, 662 N.W.2d 864 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “3 Defendants maintained that the Femdale ordinance was enacted as a valid exercise of the city’s police power pursuant to Const 1963, art 7, § 22; the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1 et seq.-, and Chapter II, § 2(4) of the Femdale Charter, and they sought summary disposition…”
Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n, 894 N.W.2d 758 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “In Midland Twp v Boundary Comm, 401 Mich 641, 650 ; 259 NW2d 326 (1977), the Home Rule Cities Act (HRCA), MCL 117.1 et seq., established “the procedures for the incorporation, consolidation or alteration of [city] boundaries.”
Casco Twp. v. Sec'y of State, 682 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Home Rule City Act (HRCA), MCL 117.1 et seq., does not specify whether a single election for a detachment of land from one city into two townships is permissible.”
Rental Props. Owners Ass'n v. Kent Cnty. Treasurer, 308 Mich. App. 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Also, unlike Rutland Twp , in which the city defendant admitted that the sole purpose of the transaction was to avoid seeking approval from the township or the boundary commission, Grand Rapids has not admitted that it purchased the properties to avoid a public auction.”
Show all 149 citing cases →
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.