Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 338 of 1974
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1601 (2026)

Short title.

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS ACT


Act 338 of 1974


125.1601 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "economic development corporations act".

History: 1974, Act 338, Imd. Eff. Dec. 18, 1974

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1981–2003 · leading case: Walter Johnson v. Econ. Dev. Corp. of the Cnty. of Oakland, 241 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walter Johnson v. Econ. Dev. Corp. of the Cnty. of Oakland, 241 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2001). “Defendant is a public economic development corporation incorporated pursuant to the Economic Development Corporation Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.1601 et seq. (the “EDC Act” or “Act”).”
City of Lansing v. Edward Rose Realty, Inc., 502 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “The precise issue considered was: Can a municipality use the power of eminent domain granted to it by the Economic Development Corporations Act, MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
City of Ctr. Line v. Chmelko, 416 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “*261 Reacting to the dismal economic climate and the steady loss of manufacturing facilities in Michigan, the Michigan Legislature had previously passed the Economic Development Corporations Act, 1974 PA 388 , MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
City of Detroit v. Vavro, 442 N.W.2d 730 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “This case involves the Jefferson/Conner Industrial Revitalization Project under which plaintiff would acquire approximately 380 of the plan’s 640 acres of land by purchase or condemnation and transfer the property to Chrysler Corporation for construction of a new automobile…”
Detroit Edison Co. v. City of Detroit, 527 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “Defendant acquired land for the purpose by condemnation pursuant to the Economic Development Corporations Act (edca), MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
McKeigan v. Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor, 587 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “In that case, the Detroit Economic Development Corporation sought to use the power of eminent domain granted to it by the Economic Development Corporations Act, MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
Alexander v. City of Norton Shores, 307 N.W.2d 476 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “The Norton Shores City Council approved a public economic development project plan pursuant to the Economic Development Corporations Act, MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
Novi v. Robert Adell Child.’s Funded Trust, 659 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “29 MCL 125.1601 et seq. 30 Poletown, supra at 628 .”
Mid-Michigan Farm & Grain Ass'n v. Henning, 339 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Based on the applicable law and the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the findings of the Clinton County Board of Commissioners and the Eagle Township Board that Westmac’s project serves a public purpose were palpably arbitrary and incorrect.”
Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 304 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1981). “I This case raises a question of paramount importance to the future welfare of this state and its residents: Can a municipality use the power of eminent domain granted to it by the Economic Development Corporations Act, MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
Carroll v. Econ. Dev. Corp., 349 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “MCL 125.1601 et seq.; MSA 5.3520(1) et seq.”
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.