OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Act 267 of 1976
15.270 Decisions of public body; presumption; civil action to invalidate; jurisdiction; venue; reenactment of disputed decision.
Sec. 10.
(1) Decisions of a public body shall be presumed to have been adopted in compliance with the requirements of this act. The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or any person may commence a civil action in the circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of this act.
(2) A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial compliance with section 3(1), (2), and (3) and the court finds that the noncompliance or failure has impaired the rights of the public under this act.
(3) The circuit court shall not have jurisdiction to invalidate a decision of a public body for a violation of this act unless an action is commenced pursuant to this section within the following specified period of time:
(a) Within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public by the public body except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b).
(b) If the decision involves the approval of contracts, the receipt or acceptance of bids, the making of assessments, the procedures pertaining to the issuance of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, or the submission of a borrowing proposal to the electors, within 30 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public pursuant to that decision.
(4) Venue for an action under this section shall be any county in which a local public body serves or, if the decision of a state public body is at issue, in Ingham county.
(5) In any case where an action has been initiated to invalidate a decision of a public body on the ground that it was not taken in conformity with the requirements of this act, the public body may, without being deemed to make any admission contrary to its interest, reenact the disputed decision in conformity with this act. A decision reenacted in this manner shall be effective from the date of reenactment and shall not be declared invalid by reason of a deficiency in the procedure used for its initial enactment.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
Notes of Decisions
Speicher v. Columbia Township Board of Trustees (2014)
mich · cites it 10×
“However, plaintiff has specifically disclaimed that he sought to invalidate defendants’ decision under that provision, stating that “[t]he damage had been done and invalidation under MCL 15.270 was simply not available.” 3 cancel the regularly scheduled meetings was made in…”
Duane Lockwood v. Township of Ellington (2018)
michctapp · cites it 8×
“2d 787 ); or (3) seek to have the decision of a public body invalidated on the grounds that it was not made in conformity with OMA ( MCL 15.270 ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App. at 699 , 731 N.”
Maiberger v. City of Livonia (2010)
mied · cites it 12×
“” Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270 (1). The Act provides, however, that a court does not have jurisdiction to invalidate a decision of a public body for a violation of the act unless the action is commenced within the periods of time specified in the Act.”
Esperance v. Chesterfield Township (1979)
michctapp · cites it 6×
“In support of its motion for summary judgment defendant first alleged that plaintiff's complaint failed to allege the statutory requirements set forth in MCL 15.270(2); MSA 4.1800(20)(2) which are prerequisities to the invalidation of any decision of a public body under the act.”
Davis v. City of Detroit Financial Review Team (2012)
michctapp · cites it 2×
“MCL 15.270. MCL 15.262(a). Tyler v Livonia Pub Schs, 459 Mich 382 , 393 n 10; 590 NW2d 560 (1999) (“Our role as members of the judiciary is not to determine whether there is a ‘more proper way,’ that is, to engage in judicial legislation, but is rather to determine the way that…”
Willis v. Deerfield Township (2003)
michctapp · cites it 5×
“MCL 15.270(2) provides: A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial…”
Hubka v. Pennfield Township (1992)
michctapp · cites it 3×
“1800(20)(3)(a). However, a careful reading of this section discloses that the "decision” referred to is a decision made during the course of a meeting held in violation of the act rather than a decision to hold a closed meeting in the first instance.”
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal (2003)
michctapp
“MCL 15.270(5) authorizes defendants to reenact the disputed decision in conformity with the OMA at defendants’ discretion.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(1) — 16 cases
Duane Lockwood v. Township of Ellington (2018)
michctapp
“2d 787 ); or (3) seek to have the decision of a public body invalidated on the grounds that it was not made in conformity with OMA ( MCL 15.270 ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App. at 699 , 731 N.”
Speicher v. Columbia Township Board of Trustees (2014)
mich
“However, plaintiff has specifically disclaimed that he sought to invalidate defendants’ decision under that provision, stating that “[t]he damage had been done and invalidation under MCL 15.270 was simply not available.” 3 cancel the regularly scheduled meetings was made in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(2) — 28 cases
Esperance v. Chesterfield Township (1979)
michctapp
“In support of its motion for summary judgment defendant first alleged that plaintiff's complaint failed to allege the statutory requirements set forth in MCL 15.270(2); MSA 4.1800(20)(2) which are prerequisities to the invalidation of any decision of a public body under the act.”
Speicher v. Columbia Township Board of Trustees (2014)
mich
“However, plaintiff has specifically disclaimed that he sought to invalidate defendants’ decision under that provision, stating that “[t]he damage had been done and invalidation under MCL 15.270 was simply not available.” 3 cancel the regularly scheduled meetings was made in…”
Duane Lockwood v. Township of Ellington (2018)
michctapp
“2d 787 ); or (3) seek to have the decision of a public body invalidated on the grounds that it was not made in conformity with OMA ( MCL 15.270 ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App. at 699 , 731 N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(3) — 7 cases
Duane Lockwood v. Township of Ellington (2018)
michctapp
“2d 787 ); or (3) seek to have the decision of a public body invalidated on the grounds that it was not made in conformity with OMA ( MCL 15.270 ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App. at 699 , 731 N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(3)(a) — 5 cases
Hubka v. Pennfield Township (1992)
michctapp
“1800(20)(3)(a). However, a careful reading of this section discloses that the "decision” referred to is a decision made during the course of a meeting held in violation of the act rather than a decision to hold a closed meeting in the first instance.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(5) — 16 cases
Duane Lockwood v. Township of Ellington (2018)
michctapp
“2d 787 ); or (3) seek to have the decision of a public body invalidated on the grounds that it was not made in conformity with OMA ( MCL 15.270 ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App. at 699 , 731 N.”
Willis v. Deerfield Township (2003)
michctapp
“MCL 15.270(2) provides: A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial…”
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal (2003)
michctapp
“MCL 15.270(5) authorizes defendants to reenact the disputed decision in conformity with the OMA at defendants’ discretion.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.270(l) — 1 case
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.