Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 123 / Act 191 of 1968
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.1012 (2026)

Petition for consolidation; filing; inclusion of township; contents of petition; rejection of petition.

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

STATE BOUNDARY COMMISSION


Act 191 of 1968


123.1012 Petition for consolidation; filing; inclusion of township; contents of petition; rejection of petition.

Sec. 12.

    (1) Proceedings for consolidation may be initiated by the filing of a petition with the commission signed by a number of registered electors who are residents of 1 or more of the affected municipalities at least equal to 5% of the total population of the affected municipalities:

    Provided, however, That no new city may be created by the consolidation process unless at least 1 of the municipalities to be consolidated is an incorporated city.

    (2) Any township having a common boundary that is contiguous with a city or village proposed for consolidation may be included in the consolidation if no village is incorporated within the territorial boundaries of the township or, if 1 or more villages are incorporated within the territorial boundaries of the township, then such village or villages shall be included within the consolidation. When any township is included in a consolidation, the term "municipality" as used in sections 12 to 17 shall include the township and the procedures set forth in such sections shall be altered as may be necessary to provide for the township.

    (3) The petition shall name the municipalities proposed to be consolidated and shall request the commission to take the proceedings necessary for consolidation under this act. The commission shall reject a petition for consolidation if a proposition to consolidate the identical municipalities has been voted on within the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the later petition. This shall not prevent the consolidation of 2 or more municipalities, which were included in a proposed consolidation voted on in the preceding 2 years, with or without additional territory, if the prior proposition included 1 or more municipalities which are not included in the later proposition.

    (4) If the commission finds that a petition does not conform to the provisions of this act, Act No. 278 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended, or of Act No. 279 of the Public Acts of 1909, as amended, to the extent that provisions thereof are not superseded by this act, or to the rules promulgated by the commission, the commission shall return the petition to the person from whom it was received together with a certified copy of its reasons for rejecting the petition. If the commission finds that the petition is proper it shall proceed in the manner specified for the processing of petitions which propose incorporation.

History: 1968, Act 191, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 362, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973

Compiler's Notes:

    For provisions of Act 278 of 1909 and Act 279 of 1909, referred to in this section, see MCL 78.1 et seq. and MCL 117.1 et seq.

AdminRule Notes:

    R 123.1 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case: Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 499 Mich. 949 (Mich. 2016). “9(6) and MCL 123.1012(3) (providing a two-year waiting period before resubmission of a petition for annexation), the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to invalidate the SBC’s 2014 approval of the appellee property owner’s petition for annexation on the basis of the SBC’s…”
Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. 2016). “9(6) and MCL 123.1012(3) (providing a two-year waiting period before resubmission of a petition for annexation), the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to invalidate the SBC’s 2014 approval of the appellee property owner’s petition for annexation on the basis of the SBC’s…”
Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. 2017). “28 Those powers include the ability to consider, among other things, population statistics, the need for governmental services in the incorporated area, and the general effect on the entire community.”
Twp. of Hopkins v. State Boundary Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Plaintiffs contended that MCL 123.1012(2) required parcels considered for annexation to be contiguous to a city, MCL 123.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.1012(2) — 1 case
Twp. of Hopkins v. State Boundary Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Plaintiffs contended that MCL 123.1012(2) required parcels considered for annexation to be contiguous to a city, MCL 123.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.1012(3) — 2 cases
Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 499 Mich. 949 (Mich. 2016). “9(6) and MCL 123.1012(3) (providing a two-year waiting period before resubmission of a petition for annexation), the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to invalidate the SBC’s 2014 approval of the appellee property owner’s petition for annexation on the basis of the SBC’s…”
Clam Lake Twp. v. Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. 2016). “9(6) and MCL 123.1012(3) (providing a two-year waiting period before resubmission of a petition for annexation), the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to invalidate the SBC’s 2014 approval of the appellee property owner’s petition for annexation on the basis of the SBC’s…”
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.