INCOMPATIBLE PUBLIC OFFICES
Act 566 of 1978
15.181 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) "Governing board" means a board of regents, board of trustees, board of governors, board of control, or other governing body of an institution of higher education.
(b) "Incompatible offices" means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those offices held:
(i) The subordination of 1 public office to another.
(ii) The supervision of 1 public office by another.
(iii) A breach of duty of public office.
(c) "Institution of higher education" means a college, university, community college, or junior college described in section 4, 5, or 6 of article 8 of the state constitution of 1963 or established under section 7 of article 8 of the state constitution of 1963.
(d) "Public employee" means an employee of this state, an employee of a city, village, township, or county of this state, or an employee of a department, board, agency, institution, commission, authority, division, council, college, university, school district, intermediate school district, special district, or other public entity of this state or of a city, village, township, or county in this state, but does not include a person whose employment results from election or appointment.
(e) "Public officer" means a person who is elected or appointed to any of the following:
(i) An office established by the state constitution of 1963.
(ii) A public office of a city, village, township, or county in this state.
(iii) A department, board, agency, institution, commission, authority, division, council, college, university, school district, intermediate school district, special district, or other public entity of this state or a city, village, township, or county in this state.
History: 1978, Act 566, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1978
Notes of Decisions
John Gleason v. William Scott Kincaid, 917 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “181 defines incompatible offices as follows: (b) "Incompatible offices" means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those…”
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 744 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“6 In challenging the propriety of Elder’s representation of Region VII as its legal counsel, Hughes also relies on the provisions of the incompatible public offices act (IPOA), MCL 15.181 et seq., which prohibits a public officer or employee from holding “2 or more incompatible…”
Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Kinney, 458 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “This is an action brought pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.; MSA 15.1120(121) et seq.”
MacOmb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “In this case plaintiff Carl Marlinga, as Macomb County Prosecutor, brought this action pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.-, MSA 15.1120(121) et seq.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake, 909 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“The Board asked the court to enter a declaratory judgment stating that plaintiff "must resign either his position as a deputy in the Sheriff's Office or his position as a member of the Lake County Board of Commissioners" because holding both positions violated Michigan's…”
Detroit Area Agency on Aging v. Off. of Servs. to the Aging, 534 N.W.2d 229 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “ending control, mandamus, and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging in relevant part that the commission’s approval of the new funding formula was unlawful and void because eight commissioners were ineligible to vote because they held incompatible public offices and acted…”
Contesti v. Attorney Gen., 416 N.W.2d 410 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“[MCL 15.181(b); MSA 16.1120(121)(b)]. Relevant here, of course, is subsection (iii).”
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 423 F. Supp. 2d 708 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
· cites it 2× “The agency argued that the Commission’s decision was unlawful because eight commissioners were ineligible to vote under the Incompatible Public Offices Act, Michigan Compiled Laws section 15.181 et seq. In that case, the commis *716 sioners agreed that they were public officers,…”
Shimkus v. Hickner, 417 F. Supp. 2d 884 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
“§ 15.181 et seq.” Id. at 711, 534 N.W.2d at 231 .”
Sch. Dist. v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 318 Mich. 363 (Mich. 1947).
“§ 15.181). The territory of said district includes all of the city ■ of Birmingham, a small part of the city of Bloomfield Hills, and some unincorporated territory in the township.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(b) — 9 cases
John Gleason v. William Scott Kincaid, 917 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“181 defines incompatible offices as follows: (b) "Incompatible offices" means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those…”
Contesti v. Attorney Gen., 416 N.W.2d 410 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“[MCL 15.181(b); MSA 16.1120(121)(b)]. Relevant here, of course, is subsection (iii).”
MacOmb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“In this case plaintiff Carl Marlinga, as Macomb County Prosecutor, brought this action pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.-, MSA 15.1120(121) et seq.”
Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Kinney, 458 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“This is an action brought pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.; MSA 15.1120(121) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(b)(i) — 1 case
Detroit Area Agency on Aging v. Off. of Servs. to the Aging, 534 N.W.2d 229 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“ending control, mandamus, and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging in relevant part that the commission’s approval of the new funding formula was unlawful and void because eight commissioners were ineligible to vote because they held incompatible public offices and acted…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(b)(iii) — 1 case
MacOmb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Murphy, 592 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“In this case plaintiff Carl Marlinga, as Macomb County Prosecutor, brought this action pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.-, MSA 15.1120(121) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(d) — 3 cases
Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Kinney, 458 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“This is an action brought pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.; MSA 15.1120(121) et seq.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(e) — 6 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(e)(ii) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.181(e)(iii) — 2 cases
Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Kinney, 458 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
“This is an action brought pursuant to § 4 of the incompatible offices act, MCL 15.181 et seq.; MSA 15.1120(121) 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.