Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 15 / Act 442 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240 (2026)

Options by requesting person; appeal; actions by public body; receipt of written appeal; judicial review; civil action; venue; de novo proceeding; burden of proof; private view of public record; contempt; assignment of action or appeal for hearing, trial, or argument; attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; assessment of award; damages.

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

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT


Act 442 of 1976


15.240 Options by requesting person; appeal; actions by public body; receipt of written appeal; judicial review; civil action; venue; de novo proceeding; burden of proof; private view of public record; contempt; assignment of action or appeal for hearing, trial, or argument; attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; assessment of award; damages.

Sec. 10.

    (1) If a public body makes a final determination to deny all or a portion of a request, the requesting person may do 1 of the following at his or her option:

    (a) Submit to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word "appeal" and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of the denial.

    (b) Commence a civil action in the circuit court, or if the decision of a state public body is at issue, the court of claims, to compel the public body's disclosure of the public records within 180 days after a public body's final determination to deny a request.

    (2) Within 10 business days after receiving a written appeal pursuant to subsection (1)(a), the head of a public body shall do 1 of the following:

    (a) Reverse the disclosure denial.

    (b) Issue a written notice to the requesting person upholding the disclosure denial.

    (c) Reverse the disclosure denial in part and issue a written notice to the requesting person upholding the disclosure denial in part.

    (d) Under unusual circumstances, issue a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the head of the public body shall respond to the written appeal. The head of a public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular written appeal.

    (3) A board or commission that is the head of a public body is not considered to have received a written appeal under subsection (2) until the first regularly scheduled meeting of that board or commission following submission of the written appeal under subsection (1)(a). If the head of the public body fails to respond to a written appeal pursuant to subsection (2), or if the head of the public body upholds all or a portion of the disclosure denial that is the subject of the written appeal, the requesting person may seek judicial review of the nondisclosure by commencing a civil action under subsection (1)(b).

    (4) In an action commenced under subsection (1)(b), a court that determines a public record is not exempt from disclosure shall order the public body to cease withholding or to produce all or a portion of a public record wrongfully withheld, regardless of the location of the public record. Venue for an action against a local public body is proper in the circuit court for the county in which the public record or an office of the public body is located has venue over the action. The court shall determine the matter de novo and the burden is on the public body to sustain its denial. The court, on its own motion, may view the public record in controversy in private before reaching a decision. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt of court.

    (5) An action commenced under this section and an appeal from an action commenced under this section shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.

    (6) If a person asserting the right to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of all or a portion of a public record prevails in an action commenced under this section, the court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. If the person or public body prevails in part, the court may, in its discretion, award all or an appropriate portion of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements. The award shall be assessed against the public body liable for damages under subsection (7).

    (7) If the court determines in an action commenced under this section that the public body has arbitrarily and capriciously violated this act by refusal or delay in disclosing or providing copies of a public record, the court shall order the public body to pay a civil fine of $1,000.00, which shall be deposited into the general fund of the state treasury. The court shall award, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, punitive damages in the amount of $1,000.00 to the person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record. The damages shall not be assessed against an individual, but shall be assessed against the next succeeding public body that is not an individual and that kept or maintained the public record as part of its public function.

History: 1976, Act 442, Eff. Apr. 13, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 329, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1978 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 553, Eff. Mar. 31, 1997 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 563, Eff. July 1, 2015

PopularName Notes:

Act 442

PopularName Notes:

FOIA
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 187 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 23× “Specifically, the Board contended that § 4 of the FOIA does not recognize a cause of action and that the FOIA’s remedial provisions, MCL 15.240, do not apply to a fee dispute brought under § 4.”
Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 12× “MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice 1 A public record is statutorily defined as a “writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession…”
Herald Co. v. E. Michigan Univ. Bd. of Regents, 719 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff provided defendant with a specific written request for the Doyle letter, and defendant denied this request claiming that the letter was exempt under MCL 15.”
Swickard v. Wayne Cnty. Med. Exam'r, 475 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 12× “MCL 15.240(1); MSA 4.1801(10)(1). In construing the provisions of the act, we keep in mind that the FOIA is intended primarily as a prodisclosure statute and the exemptions to disclosure are to be narrowly construed.”
Detroit Free Press, Inc v. City of Southfield, 713 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “The city argues that plaintiff did not have standing to sue because only Christoff, himself, may be considered a "requesting person" under the FOIA.”
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 20× “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
Amberg v. City of Dearborn, 859 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 12× “However, “[t]he mere fact that plaintiffs substantive claim under the FOIA was rendered moot by disclosure of the records after plaintiff commenced the circuit court action is not determinative of plaintiffs entitlement to fees and costs under MCL 15.”
Omdahl v. West Iron Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 733 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 12× “Under MCL 15.240 of FOIA, the term "reasonable attorneys' fees" is utilized.”
Local Area Watch v. City of Grand Rapids, 683 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “ntiff filed this lawsuit in circuit court, solely alleging a violation of the FOIA and seeking a determination regarding what requested records are exempt under the FOIA (through inspection in camera by the court), and an order that nonexempt records be released to plaintiff,…”
Prins v. Michigan State Police, 831 N.W.2d 867 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “Section 10 of the FOIA, MCL 15.240(6), provides in part that, “[i]f a person asserting the right to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of all or a portion of a public record prevails in an action commenced under this section, the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees,…”
Rataj v. City of Romulus, 858 N.W.2d 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff also requested costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to MCL 15.240(6). In lieu of filing an answer, defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”
Thomas v. City of New Baltimore, 657 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “235(2); MCL 15.240(2), *203 and by failing to follow their duty to timely disclose all records within plaintiffs request, particularly when defendants do not allege that they were specifically exempt under the act.”
Show all 187 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(1) — 56 cases
Swickard v. Wayne Cnty. Med. Exam'r, 475 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. 1991). “MCL 15.240(1); MSA 4.1801(10)(1). In construing the provisions of the act, we keep in mind that the FOIA is intended primarily as a prodisclosure statute and the exemptions to disclosure are to be narrowly construed.”
Evening News Ass'n v. City of Troy, 339 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. 1983).
Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins., 534 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 1995).
Truel v. City of Dearborn, 804 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
Detroit Free Press, Inc v. City of Southfield, 713 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “The city argues that plaintiff did not have standing to sue because only Christoff, himself, may be considered a "requesting person" under the FOIA.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(1)(a) — 9 cases
Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice 1 A public record is statutorily defined as a “writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession…”
Progress Michigan v. Attorney Gen., 922 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
Marc Edwards v. Oakland Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Federated Publications Inc v. City of Lansing (Mich. 2002).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(1)(b) — 27 cases
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, the Board contended that § 4 of the FOIA does not recognize a cause of action and that the FOIA’s remedial provisions, MCL 15.240, do not apply to a fee dispute brought under § 4.”
Mlive Media Grp. v. City of Grand Rapdis, 909 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Detroit Free Press, Inc v. City of Southfield, 713 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “The city argues that plaintiff did not have standing to sue because only Christoff, himself, may be considered a "requesting person" under the FOIA.”
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
Local Area Watch v. City of Grand Rapids, 683 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “ntiff filed this lawsuit in circuit court, solely alleging a violation of the FOIA and seeking a determination regarding what requested records are exempt under the FOIA (through inspection in camera by the court), and an order that nonexempt records be released to plaintiff,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(2) — 3 cases
Thomas v. City of New Baltimore, 657 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “235(2); MCL 15.240(2), *203 and by failing to follow their duty to timely disclose all records within plaintiffs request, particularly when defendants do not allege that they were specifically exempt under the act.”
Rodd Monts v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Dist. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Michigan Open Carry Inc v. Dep't of State Police (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(2)(a) — 2 cases
Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice 1 A public record is statutorily defined as a “writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession…”
Federated Publications Inc v. City of Lansing (Mich. 2002).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(2)(b) — 1 case
Patricia Lesko v. Supreme Felons Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(3) — 6 cases
Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice 1 A public record is statutorily defined as a “writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession…”
Swickard v. Wayne Cnty. Med. Exam'r, 475 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. 1991). “MCL 15.240(1); MSA 4.1801(10)(1). In construing the provisions of the act, we keep in mind that the FOIA is intended primarily as a prodisclosure statute and the exemptions to disclosure are to be narrowly construed.”
Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1982).
Cashel v. Smith, 324 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
Michigan Open Carry Inc v. Dep't of State Police (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(4) — 64 cases
Coblentz v. City of Novi, 719 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 2006).
Herald Co. v. E. Michigan Univ. Bd. of Regents, 719 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. 2006). “Plaintiff provided defendant with a specific written request for the Doyle letter, and defendant denied this request claiming that the letter was exempt under MCL 15.”
Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice 1 A public record is statutorily defined as a “writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession…”
Omdahl v. West Iron Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 733 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2007). “Under MCL 15.240 of FOIA, the term "reasonable attorneys' fees" is utilized.”
Michigan Fed'n of Teachers & Sch. Related Pers. v. Univ. of Michigan, 753 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. 2008).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(5) — 18 cases
Herald Co. v. E. Michigan Univ. Bd. of Regents, 719 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. 2006). “Plaintiff provided defendant with a specific written request for the Doyle letter, and defendant denied this request claiming that the letter was exempt under MCL 15.”
Michigan Tax Mgmt. Servs. Co. v. City of Warren, 473 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. 1991).
Laracey v. Fin. Institutions Bureau, 414 N.W.2d 909 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
Kestenbaum v. Michigan State Univ., 327 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1982).
Walloon Lake Water Sys., Inc v. Melrose Twp., 415 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(6) — 62 cases
Amberg v. City of Dearborn, 859 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. 2014). “However, “[t]he mere fact that plaintiffs substantive claim under the FOIA was rendered moot by disclosure of the records after plaintiff commenced the circuit court action is not determinative of plaintiffs entitlement to fees and costs under MCL 15.”
Pirgu v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 884 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. 2016).
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, the Board contended that § 4 of the FOIA does not recognize a cause of action and that the FOIA’s remedial provisions, MCL 15.240, do not apply to a fee dispute brought under § 4.”
Rataj v. City of Romulus, 858 N.W.2d 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Plaintiff also requested costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to MCL 15.240(6). In lieu of filing an answer, defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(7) — 33 cases
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).
Prins v. Michigan State Police, 831 N.W.2d 867 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Section 10 of the FOIA, MCL 15.240(6), provides in part that, “[i]f a person asserting the right to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of all or a portion of a public record prevails in an action commenced under this section, the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees,…”
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
Local Area Watch v. City of Grand Rapids, 683 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “ntiff filed this lawsuit in circuit court, solely alleging a violation of the FOIA and seeking a determination regarding what requested records are exempt under the FOIA (through inspection in camera by the court), and an order that nonexempt records be released to plaintiff,…”
Amberg v. City of Dearborn, 859 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. 2014). “However, “[t]he mere fact that plaintiffs substantive claim under the FOIA was rendered moot by disclosure of the records after plaintiff commenced the circuit court action is not determinative of plaintiffs entitlement to fees and costs under MCL 15.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(l)(a) — 5 cases
Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing, 467 Mich. 98 (Mich. 2002). “MCL 15.240(1)(a), (b). If the requesting party appeals the matter to the head of the public body, the public body must either reverse its denial of disclosure, issue a written notice 1 A public record is statutorily defined as a “writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession…”
Thomas v. City of New Baltimore, 657 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “235(2); MCL 15.240(2), *203 and by failing to follow their duty to timely disclose all records within plaintiffs request, particularly when defendants do not allege that they were specifically exempt under the act.”
Scharret v. City of Berkley, 642 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
Krug v. Ingham Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 691 N.W.2d 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.240(l)(b) — 6 cases
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, the Board contended that § 4 of the FOIA does not recognize a cause of action and that the FOIA’s remedial provisions, MCL 15.240, do not apply to a fee dispute brought under § 4.”
Prins v. Michigan State Police, 805 N.W.2d 619 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Meredith Corp. v. City of Flint, 671 N.W.2d 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 15.240(1)(a), or seek review of the denial in circuit court, M.”
Prins v. Michigan State Police, 831 N.W.2d 867 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “Section 10 of the FOIA, MCL 15.240(6), provides in part that, “[i]f a person asserting the right to inspect, copy, or receive a copy of all or a portion of a public record prevails in an action commenced under this section, the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees,…”
Practical Political Consulting, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, 789 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
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.