Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 15 / Act 267 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.261 (2026)

Short title; effect of act on certain charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions.

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

OPEN MEETINGS ACT


Act 267 of 1976


15.261 Short title; effect of act on certain charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions.

Sec. 1.

    (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Open meetings act".

    (2) This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions which relate to requirements for meetings of local public bodies to be open to the public.

    (3) After the effective date of this act, nothing in this act shall prohibit a public body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision which would require a greater degree of openness relative to meetings of public bodies than the standards provided for in this act.

History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 207 cases (57 in the last 5 years), 1942–2026 · leading case: Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 7× “Speicher brought an action against the Columbia Township Board of Trustees and the Columbia Township Planning Commission in the Van Buren Circuit Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis of defendants’ alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL…”
Booth Newspapers, Inc v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 507 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 6× “The dispositive issues in this case are whether the presidential selection procedure adopted by the University of Michigan Board of Regents violated the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq.; MSA 4.1800(11) et seq.”
Jocham v. Tuscola Cnty., 239 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 6× “, Michigan’s Open Meetings Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.261 et seq., the Standards of Conduct for Public Officers and Employees, Mich.”
Herald Co. v. City of Bay City, 614 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 4× “" However, the committee, as the creation of the city manager, did not derive its power from "state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule.”
Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 894 N.W.2d 645 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “This case concerns the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., and our Supreme Court’s construction of the OMA in Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 497 Mich 125 ; 860 NW2d 51 (2014).”
Davis v. City of Detroit Fin. Review Team, 821 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “309250, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on Davis’s allegations that various state officials and members of the Detroit Financial Review Team were in contempt of court.”
Federated Publications, Inc v. Michigan State Univ. Bd. of Trs., 594 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “§ 15.261 et seq.; MSA 14.1800(11) et seq.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. City of Detroit, 704 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “(7) The business which the council may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the council held in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267 , MCL 15.261 to 15.275. Public notice of the time, date, and place of the meeting shall be given in the manner required…”
Morrison v. City of East Lansing, 660 N.W.2d 395 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “*507 Defendants cross-appeal the grant of costs and attorney fees, challenging the trial court’s determination that they violated the Open Meetings Act (oma), MCL 15.261 et seq. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from circumstances surrounding the…”
Local Area Watch v. City of Grand Rapids, 683 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argued, in part, that the purposes for the executive sessions were other than those allowed under the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., and therefore, the exemption cited by the FOIA coordinator did not *140 apply.”
In Re Parole of Glover, 575 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 15.261 et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1800(11) et seq.”
Council of Organizations & Others for Educ. About Parochiaid, Inc. v. Governor, 566 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 15.261 et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1800(11) et seq.”
Show all 207 citing cases →
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.261(2): 1 case
Ritchie v. Coldwater Cmty. Schs., 947 F. Supp. 2d 791 (W.D. Mich. 2013).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.261(3): 1 case
Meyers v. Patchkowski, 549 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
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.