Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 15 / Act 10 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.1 (2026)

Uniform bond coverage; state officers and employees; exceptions.

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

BONDS OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES


Act 10 of 1969


15.1 Uniform bond coverage; state officers and employees; exceptions.

Sec. 1.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, officers and employees of all state departments and agencies that are required by statute or in the discretion of the director of the department covered, or otherwise to furnish bonds conditioned for their honesty or faithful discharge of their duties shall be covered by a blanket bond or bonds as a departmental group or as a state group by corporate surety companies as approved by the director of the department of administration. Treasurers and tax collectors by whatever title known may be covered by individual bonds.

History: 1969, Act 10, Imd. Eff. May 7, 1969

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1940–2021 · leading case: People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001). “LaFave, Israel & King, Criminal Procedure (2d ed), § 15.1(e), (g), pp 239-240, 250-252. Although Oklahoma allows for a second determination of probable cause, the indictment remains the charging document.”
In Re Ford Motor Co. ERISA Litig., 590 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “H, Article XV, § 15.1, Ford-ER00816 (“2001 SSIP Plan Document”) (“The Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) established in the Plan effective January 1, 1989, shall consist of all the shares of Company Stock in the Plan at any time .”
Munro v. Elk Rapids Schs., 178 N.W.2d 450 (Mich. 1970). · cites it 2× “(Stat Ann § 15.1 et seq. )].) [2] If the legislature intended to deprive local governing bodies of administrative control of teachers, that intent should have been definitely stated in the tenure act.”
Duckworth v. Cont'l Nat'l Indem. Co., 706 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Act, § 15.1(3)(b). Thus, unlike those with private health insurance coverage, OHIP patients do not purchase partial or full coverage to reduce or eliminate their liability for medical expenses.”
Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hosp., 904 F. Supp. 2d 699 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “Bylaws Article XV, § 15.1, Defendants’ Ex. 33, p. 63. In Michigan, “the validity of a release turns on the intent of the parties.”
Rehberg v. Bd. of Educ. of Melvindale, Ecorse Sch. Dist. No. 11, 48 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1951). “School districts, though State agencies, are governed locally and their controlling boards are chosen by the electorate.”
MacLean v. State Bd. of Control for Vocational Educ., 292 N.W. 662 (Mich. 1940). “§ 15.1 et seq.\), under penalty of fine and imprisonment.”
Brown v. City of Highland Park, 30 N.W.2d 798 (Mich. 1948). “§ 15.1 et seq.]). The board created by the act of 1915 to *114 administer tbe teachers’ pension fund assumed to function after the act of 1927 became effective, claiming that the repealing act was unconstitutional.”
Sch. Dist. of Ferndale v. Royal Oak Twp. Sch. Dist. No. 8, 291 N.W. 199 (Mich. 1940). “§15.1 et seq.]), was adopted. At the time the village of Ferndale was incorporated, it annexed to its easterly border a strip of land which was included in Royal Oak township school district No.”
Street v. Ferndale Bd. of Educ., 104 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 1960). “(Stat Ann § 15.1 et seg.)].) If the legislature intended to deprive local governing bodies of administrative control of teachers, that intent should have been definitely stated in the tenure act.”
Sch. Dist. v. City of Pontiac, 294 N.W. 141 (Mich. 1940). “§ 15.1 et seq.]); and the city is a municipal corporation established and operating under the home rule act (1 Comp.”
City of St. Louis v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 708 F. Supp. 2d 632 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “Plan § 15.1(w); see also Confirmation Order ¶ 76.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.1(3)(b) — 1 case
Duckworth v. Cont'l Nat'l Indem. Co., 706 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Act, § 15.1(3)(b). Thus, unlike those with private health insurance coverage, OHIP patients do not purchase partial or full coverage to reduce or eliminate their liability for medical expenses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.1(e) — 1 case
People v. Glass, 627 N.W.2d 261 (Mich. 2001). “LaFave, Israel & King, Criminal Procedure (2d ed), § 15.1(e), (g), pp 239-240, 250-252. Although Oklahoma allows for a second determination of probable cause, the indictment remains the charging document.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.1(w) — 1 case
City of St. Louis v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 708 F. Supp. 2d 632 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “Plan § 15.1(w); see also Confirmation Order ¶ 76.”
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.