Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.184 (2026)

Injunction or other judicial relief or remedy.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

INCOMPATIBLE PUBLIC OFFICES

Act 566 of 1978

15.184 Injunction or other judicial relief or remedy.

Sec. 4.

The attorney general or a prosecuting attorney may apply to the circuit court for Ingham county or to the circuit court for the county in which the alleged act or practice in violation of this act is alleged to have occurred or in which a party to the alleged violative act or practice resides, for injunctive or other appropriate judicial relief or remedy. However, this act shall not create a private cause of action.

History: 1978, Act 566, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1978

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1947–2014 · leading case: MacOmb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Murphy, 627 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MacOmb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Murphy, 627 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “MCL 15.184; MSA 15.1120(124). Rather, it grants the Attorney General and county prosecuting attorneys the authority to apply to the circuit court "for injunctive or other appropriate judicial relief or remedy.”

Okrie v. State, 857 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “See MCL 15.184 (explaining that the statute governing incompatible offices “shall not create a private cause of action” and that the “attorney general or a prosecuting attorney may apply” for “injunctive or other appropriate judicial relief or remedy.”

Detroit Area Agency on Aging v. Off. of Servs. to the Aging, 534 N.W.2d 229 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the trial court erred in voiding the commission’s vote approving the new funding formula.”

Shimkus v. Hickner, 417 F. Supp. 2d 884 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 4× “182 , has a companion provision that states: The attorney general or a prosecuting attorney may apply to the circuit court for Ingham county or to the circuit court for the county in which the alleged act or practice in violation of this act is alleged to have occurred or in…”

Lansing Sch. Dist. v. Sch. Dist. No. 3, 327 Mich. 436 (Mich. 1950). · cites it 2× “4 [Stat Ann § 15.184]), applies to the instant case, and results in the annexation of the Everett district as a part of the Lansing school district by the adoption of the above resolution without any further election or vote of the' electors of the districts involved.”

Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Sch. Dist., 50 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. 1951). · cites it 3× “4 (Stat Ann § 15.184), the lands so annexed automatically became a part of the defendant school district.”

Sch. Dist. v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 318 Mich. 363 (Mich. 1947). “§ 15.184]); the words “city forming the whole-or a part of a school district of the third class” are used in the same sentence with and intended to be consistent with the words, “the contiguous school district embracing the whole or some part of said city.”

Crawford v. Sch. Dist. No. 6, 70 N.W.2d 789 (Mich. 1955). “4 [Stat Ann 1953 Rev § 15.184]), in its controverted portion reads as follows: “Whenever hereafter any territory shall be annexed to any city forming the.”

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.