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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.1a (2026)

Short title.

✓ 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


117.1a Short title.

Sec. 1a.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as "the home rule city act".

History: Add. 1945, Act 15, Eff. Sept. 6, 1945 ;-- CL 1948, 117.1a ;-- Am. 1994, Act 89, Eff. Oct. 1, 1994

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. City of Holland, 600 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adams Outdoor Advert., Inc v. City of Holland, 600 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 117.1a; MSA 5.2071(1). 4 MCL 117.4i(5); MSA 5.”
Associated Builders & Contractors v. City of Lansing, 853 N.W.2d 433 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “See MCL 117.1a. “The [HRCA] is intended to give cities a large measure of home rule.”
Kofi Johnson v. Motor City Prop. Managers LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “He asserts, in part, that the judgment is void because the county assessor’s office informed him of overpayment, municipal corporations may only contract through methods prescribed by law, the subject property was transferred in violation of the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.”
Kofi Johnson v. Motor City Prop. Managers LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “He asserts, in part, that the judgment is void because the county assessor’s office informed him of overpayment, municipal corporations may only contract through methods prescribed by law, the subject property was transferred in violation of the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.”
Creative Arts Ctr. Rockford v. City of Rockford (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Further, under The Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1a et seq., and specifically, MCL 117.”
Horace Sheffield III v. Detroit City Clerk (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “However, I do not read DCRC’s argument as suggesting otherwise; rather, DCRC argues that although a city’s authority may be constrained, the HRCA does not constrain it in the manner plaintiffs have suggested in this case. I agree with that position.”
Tom Rotta v. City of Ludington (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “19 of the Home Rule City Act (HRCA), MCL 117.1a et seq., which affected the outcome of the election because voters were unaware of the costs associated with revising the city charter.”
David Samona v. the City of Eastpointe Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “] Eastpointe contends that the pre-1909 Supreme Court cases no longer applied after the enactment of the Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.1a et seq., and amendment of the Michigan Constitution, giving local governments the power to regulate local concerns.”
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.