Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.2 (2026)

Saving clause.

✓ 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

117.2 Saving clause.

Sec. 2.

Each city now existing shall continue with all its present rights and powers until otherwise provided by law.

History: 1909, Act 279, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- Am. 1911, Act 203, Eff. Aug. 1, 1911 ;-- CL 1915, 3305 ;-- CL 1929, 2229 ;-- CL 1948, 117.2

Compiler's Notes:

Act 203 of 1911, which amended this section, was held unconstitutional and void. See note to MCL 117.1.

The 1911 amendment reads as follows: “Sec. 2. Each city now existing shall continue with all its present rights and powers except as herein otherwise provided.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1958–1985 · leading case: City of Livonia v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 378 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Livonia v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 378 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. 1985). “We do not find this statute to be in conflict with § 3b of the cvza, since it merely authorizes a city to adopt charter provisions and ordinances related to zoning.”

Mkt. Place v. City of Ann Arbor, 351 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “” MCL 117.2; MSA 5.2072. The court found that prior to 1956 Ann Arbor was a fourth class city.”

Southland Corp. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 291 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “There is no comparable provision for subsection 117.2(1) of the court rule. Thus, we find that plaintiff was not entitled to such relief.”

Taliaferro v. Genesee Cnty. Supervisors, 92 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. 1958). “2071]) that “each organized city shall be a body corporate,” and further provides in section 2 (CL 1948, § 117.2 [Stat Ann 1949 Rev § 5.2072]) that “each city now existing shall continue with all its present rights and powers until otherwise provided by law.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 117.2(1) — 1 case

Southland Corp. v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 291 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “There is no comparable provision for subsection 117.2(1) of the court rule. Thus, we find that plaintiff was not entitled to such relief.”

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.