Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 119.51 (2026)

Huron-Clinton metropolitan authority; incorporation, counties.

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

HURON-CLINTON METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY


Act 147 of 1939


119.51 Huron-Clinton metropolitan authority; incorporation, counties.

Sec. 1.

    As may hereinafter be provided in this act, the counties of Wayne, Washtenaw, Livingston, Oakland, and Macomb, or certain of such counties, may by vote of the electorate thereof, join to form a metropolitan district as a body corporate, to be known as the Huron-Clinton metropolitan authority, for the purpose of planning, promoting, and/or for acquiring, constructing, owning, developing, maintaining and operating, either within or without their limits, parks and/or limited access highways, as well as such connecting drives as may be deemed necessary or convenient to provide access to and between the same.

History: 1939, Act 147, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 119.51

Compiler's Notes:

    This act has been adopted by the counties enumerated in this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1951–1989 · leading case: Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of PA 1966, No 346, 158 N.W.2d 416 (Mich. 1968).
Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of PA 1966, No 346, 158 N.W.2d 416 (Mich. 1968). · cites it 2× “(6) Huron-Clinton metropolitan authority: PA 1939, No 147, CL 1948, § 119.51 et seq. (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.2148[1] et seq.”
Smith v. Bd. of Commissioners, 212 N.W.2d 32 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “Having found that defendant's operation of the excursion boat was a governmental function, the trial court granted defendant's motion and plaintiffs appeal that decision.”
Van Zanen v. Keydel, 280 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “The sole issue on appeal is whether or not the metropolitan district act, MCL 119.51 et seq.; MSA 5.2148(1) et seq.”
Bullinger v. Gremore, 72 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. 1955). “Involved there was the constitutionality of PA 1939, No 147 (CL 1948, § 119.51 et seq. [Stat Ann 1949 Rev §5.2148(1) et seq.”
Schwaderer v. Huron-Clinton Metro. Auth., 45 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 1951). “The defendant in this case is a public corporation organized under the provisions of PA 1939, No 147 (CL 1948, § 119.51 et seq. [Stat Ann § 5.2148(1) et seq.”
Huron-Clinton Metro. Auth. v. Attorney Gen., 379 N.W.2d 474 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff, a metropolitan district covering Macomb, Wayne, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Livingston Counties, incorporated pursuant to MCL 119.51 et seq.; MSA 5.2148(1) et seq.”
Morse v. Wayne Cnty. Supervisors, 93 N.W.2d 886 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 2× “It is cited officially as CL 1948, § 119.51 et seq. (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.2148[1] et seq.”
Bessler v. Huron-Clinton Metro. Auth., 447 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “Hcma, which runs Kensington Park, is a municipal corporation formed under enabling legislation, MCL 119.51; MSA 5.2148(1). On August 13, 1987, hcma moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs' claim was barred by governmental *399 immunity, MCL 691.”
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.