BUILDING AUTHORITIES
Act 31 of 1948 (1st Ex. Sess.)
123.951 Local building authorities; incorporation; purposes; "transit-oriented development" and "transit-oriented facility" defined.
Sec. 1.
(1) A county, city, village, or township may incorporate, as provided in this act, 1 or more authorities for the purpose of acquiring, furnishing, equipping, owning, improving, enlarging, operating and maintaining a building or buildings, automobile parking lots or structures, transit-oriented developments, transit-oriented facilities, recreational facilities, stadiums, and the necessary site or sites therefore, together with appurtenant properties and facilities necessary or convenient for the effective use of the facilities, for use for any legitimate public purpose of the county, city, village, or township.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Transit-oriented development" means infrastructure improvements that are located within 1/2 mile of a transit station or transit-oriented facility that promotes transit ridership or passenger rail use.
(b) "Transit-oriented facility" means a facility that houses a transit station in a manner that promotes transit ridership or passenger rail use.
History: 1948, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 31, Imd. Eff. May 10, 1948 ;-- CL 1948, 123.951 ;-- Am. 1954, Act 113, Imd. Eff. Apr. 15, 1954 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 25, Imd. Eff. Apr. 7, 1955 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 41, Imd. Eff. May 6, 1964 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 96, Imd. Eff. June 6, 1968 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 47, Imd. Eff. July 2, 1970 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 278, Imd. Eff. Dec. 18, 1992 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 121, Imd. Eff. July 20, 1993 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 243, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 2010
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2022 · leading case:
Alan v. Wayne Cnty., 200 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 1972).
Alan v. Wayne Cnty., 200 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 1972).
· cites it 8× “as last amended by PA 1969, No's 79 and 87), has stirred the Court to unanimous prompt affirmance of the injunctive judgment entered below.”
Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 259 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “By amendments in 1913 ( 1913 PA 95 as to villages, 1913 PA 5 as to cities), "and for changing their boundaries" was replaced with "and for revising and amending their charters".”
Herp v. Lansing City Clerk, 416 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The building authority act, MCL 123.951 et seq.; MSA 5.301(1) et seq.”
Alibri v. Detroit/Wayne Cnty. Stadium Auth., 658 N.W.2d 167 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“Although the subsequent transfer of the subject property to the Tigers after defendant decided to “downsize” the project may “raise eyebrows,” the trial court has cited no legal authority for the proposition that a private entity that will be both a major beneficiary and a…”
Bullinger v. Gremore, 72 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. 1955).
“1948, § 123.951 et seq. (Stat Ann 1953 Cum Supp § 5.”
Accident Fund v. Baerwaldt, 1912 PA 10 (W.D. Mich. 1982).
· cites it 3× “§ 123.951 et seq; M.S.A. § 5.301(1) et seq, was not the alter ego of the county and in doing so wrote: While the authority is in a sense a county wide municipal corporation, it is limited in its scope of activities even inside of county affairs.”
Rude v. Muskegon Cnty. Bldg. Auth., 61 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 1953).
“Defendant authority is a body corporate created under PA 1948 (1st Ex Sess), No 31 (CL 1948, § 123.951 et seq. [Stat Ann 1951 Cum Supp § 5.”
Betz v. Berrien Cnty. Bldg. Auth., 162 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
“The defendant county of Berrien caused the incorporation of the defendant Berrien County Building Authority (herein referred to as the Authority) under the authorization found in CL 1948, § 123.951 et seq., as amended (Stat Ann 1961 Rev and 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
Alan v. Wayne Cnty., 202 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. 1972).
“When we decided this case we held that the Detroit Stadium Bonds were not revenue bonds within the definitions of MCLA 123.951 et seq.; MSA 5.301(1) et seq.”
Detroit Bldg. Auth. v. Wayne Cnty. Treas., 738 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2007).
“Contrary to the Court of Appeals majority's conclusion, the Wayne County Treasurer had reason to know that *766 the property was publicly owned because there is no dispute that the plaintiff Detroit Building Authority, which was incorporated by the intervening plaintiff City of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 123.951(1) — 1 case
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.