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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.2 (2026)

Bonds; conditions, coverage; departmental problems.

✓ 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


15.2 Bonds; conditions, coverage; departmental problems.

Sec. 2.

    The director of the department of administration or his designated agent is authorized to determine, after consultation with the director of the department of commerce, the condition of each such bond and whether a single state bond for all state officers and employees or departmental bonds, shall best serve the state. In determining adequate coverage, the department of administration is authorized to obtain bond coverage with provisions relative to departmental problems of a unique nature, including loss deductible or coinsurance provisions.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: City of Gaylord v. Gaylord City Clerk, 144 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. 1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Gaylord v. Gaylord City Clerk, 144 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. 1966). · cites it 8× “6 of the city charter? (2) The financing may contemplate the city's engaging in a business enterprise requiring an investment of money in excess of 10 cents per capita but without the approving vote of the electors of the city thereon, as required by section 15.2 of the city…”
Brouwer v. Kent Cnty. Clerk, 141 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. 1966). · cites it 3× “’ “(i) The 8 members from the city of Wyoming are selected in accordance with the provisions of chapter 15, §§ 15.2 and 15.3, the relevant portion reading as follows: “ 'Section 15.”
Oppenhuizen v. City of Zeeland, 300 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Upon referral, the City of Zeeland reported to the Commission that the license application violated Section 15.2 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Zeeland which reads as follows: " 'Sec.”
Davidson v. Baker-Vander Veen Constr. Co., 192 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “motion, the opposite party shall present affidavits or other proof denying the facts alleged or establishing facts obviating the objection, the court may take proof, and hear and determine the same and may grant or deny the motion; but if disputed questions of fact are involved…”
Sch. Dist. v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 318 Mich. 363 (Mich. 1947). “§ 15.2]). Its territory includes a small part of the city of Bloomfield Hills, and unincorporated territory in'the township.”
Coa 367756 People Of Mi V Corteco Cortez Leflore Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 2/10/2025 (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “” 2 LeFave, Substantive Criminal Law (3d ed), § 15.2(b)(5). However, this reasoning does not “extend beyond the marital relationship .”
People of Michigan v. Gregory Terrance Lee (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” LaFave, § 15.2(a), p 494 (quotation marks omitted).”
People of Michigan v. Brian Lee Stapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “] See also 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law, § 15.2(b)(4) (3d ed) (“[A] lawful arrest cannot constitute sufficient provocation.”
People of Michigan v. Ryan Allen Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (3d ed), § 15.2(b)(5). -11- reason. When, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find that the provocation was adequate, the judge may exclude evidence of the provocation.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.2(a): 1 case
People of Michigan v. Gregory Terrance Lee (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” LaFave, § 15.2(a), p 494 (quotation marks omitted).”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.2(b): 1 case
People of Michigan v. Gregory Terrance Lee (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” LaFave, § 15.2(a), p 494 (quotation marks omitted).”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.2(b)(4): 1 case
People of Michigan v. Brian Lee Stapp (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “] See also 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law, § 15.2(b)(4) (3d ed) (“[A] lawful arrest cannot constitute sufficient provocation.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.2(b)(5): 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Ryan Allen Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (3d ed), § 15.2(b)(5). -11- reason. When, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could find that the provocation was adequate, the judge may exclude evidence of the provocation.”
Coa 367756 People Of Mi V Corteco Cortez Leflore Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 2/10/2025 (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” 2 LeFave, Substantive Criminal Law (3d ed), § 15.2(b)(5). However, this reasoning does not “extend beyond the marital relationship .”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.2(b)(6): 1 case
Coa 367756 People Of Mi V Corteco Cortez Leflore Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 2/10/2025 (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” 2 LeFave, Substantive Criminal Law (3d ed), § 15.2(b)(5). However, this reasoning does not “extend beyond the marital relationship .”
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.