Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 124.29 (2026)

Other method of annexation or transfer prohibited.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONDITIONAL TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY CONTRACT

Act 425 of 1984

124.29 Other method of annexation or transfer prohibited.

Sec. 9.

While a contract under this act is in effect, another method of annexation or transfer shall not take place for any portion of an area transferred under the contract.

History: 1984, Act 425, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2017 · leading case: Casco Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 622 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Casco Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 622 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “The townships appealed to the circuit court, arguing that MCL 124.29; MSA 5.4087(29) absolutely barred any method of annexation or transfer of land covered in the Act 425 agreements and that the commission lacked the legal authority to determine the validity of Act 425…”

Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. 2017). · cites it 11× “” An Act 425 agreement is “in effect” if it is entered into and properly filed pursuant to MCL 124.30. The Townships’ agreement met those conditions; therefore, the Commission and circuit court erred by invalidating the agreement on other grounds.”

Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 124.29. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants in circuit court challenging the agreement, which was dismissed on summary disposition because the circuit court determined that the State Boundary Commission (SBC) had primary jurisdiction.”

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.