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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271 (2026)

Civil action to compel compliance or enjoin noncompliance; commencement; venue; security not required; commencement of action for mandamus; court costs and attorney fees.

✓ 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


15.271 Civil action to compel compliance or enjoin noncompliance; commencement; venue; security not required; commencement of action for mandamus; court costs and attorney fees.

Sec. 11.

    (1)  If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or a person may commence a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this act.

    (2) An action for injunctive relief against a local public body shall be commenced in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the public body serves. An action for an injunction against a state public body shall be commenced in the circuit court and venue is proper in any county in which the public body has its principal office, or in Ingham county. If a person commences an action for injunctive relief, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.

    (3) An action for mandamus against a public body under this act shall be commenced in the court of appeals.

    (4) If a public body is not complying with this act, and a person commences a civil action against the public body for injunctive relief to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with the act and succeeds in obtaining relief in the action, the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the action.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · 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 152× “When read in the context of the statutory scheme, MCL 15.271 limits the award of attorney fees to cases in which the public body persists in violating the act, a suit is brought to enjoin that behavior, and that suit is successful in obtaining injunctive relief.”
Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 45× “270 (action to invalidate decision made in violation of the OMA), MCL 15.271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.”
Omdahl v. West Iron Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 733 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 34× “At issue in this case is whether a pro se litigant, who is also an attorney, may recover "court costs and actual attorney fees," MCL 15.271(4), after he or she *382 brings a successful action under the Open Meetings Act.”
Leemreis v. Sherman Twp., 731 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 24× “However, in the following section, MCL 15.271, the Legislature provided a distinctly different cause of action against public bodies for noncompliance with the act: (1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in…”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 832 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 15× “We affirm in part because we conclude that actual attorney fees recoverable under MCL 15.271(4) may not be clearly excessive and only fees for the OMA action are recoverable; however, we vacate the award and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion because an…”
Omdahl v. West Iron Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 722 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 26× “[2] Plaintiff, an attorney who has proceeded pro se throughout this litigation, requested an award of attorney fees and court costs pursuant to MCL 15.271(4). The trial court denied the request, and plaintiff appeals.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd., 843 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “MCL 15.271(1) allows a person to seek injunctive relief “to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with [the] act.”
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal, 669 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “” MCL 15.271(4). The plain language of the statute simply states that plaintiff need only “succeedf] in obtaining relief in the action” in order to recover court costs and attorney fees.”
Michael Zoran v. Twp. of Cottrellville, 913 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “The court's final judgment reflected these findings and conclusions, and ordered that Lisco pay plaintiffs' attorney fees in the amount of $12,392.”
Kitchen v. Ferndale City Council, 654 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “” The trial court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for costs and attorney fees, clarifying that, although it ordered that the tapes be filed with the city clerk, it did not find that defendants had violated the OMA.”
House Speaker v. Governor, 491 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS The MEPF argues also that the trial court erred in failing to award it attorney fees and costs.”
Booth Newspapers, Inc v. Wyoming City Council, 425 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Under the oma, it is a person who may file suit to compel compliance with the act, MCL 15.271(1); MSA 4.1800(21)(1), and a successful person who may recover actual attorney fees and court costs, MCL 15.”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271(1) — 22 cases
Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “270 (action to invalidate decision made in violation of the OMA), MCL 15.271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). “When read in the context of the statutory scheme, MCL 15.271 limits the award of attorney fees to cases in which the public body persists in violating the act, a suit is brought to enjoin that behavior, and that suit is successful in obtaining injunctive relief.”
Duane Lockwood v. Twp. of Ellington, 917 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Leemreis v. Sherman Twp., 731 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, in the following section, MCL 15.271, the Legislature provided a distinctly different cause of action against public bodies for noncompliance with the act: (1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in…”
Booth Newspapers, Inc v. Wyoming City Council, 425 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “Under the oma, it is a person who may file suit to compel compliance with the act, MCL 15.271(1); MSA 4.1800(21)(1), and a successful person who may recover actual attorney fees and court costs, MCL 15.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271(1)(4) — 1 case
Elizabeth A Silverman Pc V Lawrence David Korn (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271(2) — 2 cases
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). “When read in the context of the statutory scheme, MCL 15.271 limits the award of attorney fees to cases in which the public body persists in violating the act, a suit is brought to enjoin that behavior, and that suit is successful in obtaining injunctive relief.”
Citizens United Against Corrupt Gov't v. Troy City Council (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271(3) — 1 case
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). “When read in the context of the statutory scheme, MCL 15.271 limits the award of attorney fees to cases in which the public body persists in violating the act, a suit is brought to enjoin that behavior, and that suit is successful in obtaining injunctive relief.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.271(4) — 51 cases
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). “When read in the context of the statutory scheme, MCL 15.271 limits the award of attorney fees to cases in which the public body persists in violating the act, a suit is brought to enjoin that behavior, and that suit is successful in obtaining injunctive relief.”
Omdahl v. West Iron Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 733 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2007). “At issue in this case is whether a pro se litigant, who is also an attorney, may recover "court costs and actual attorney fees," MCL 15.271(4), after he or she *382 brings a successful action under the Open Meetings Act.”
Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “270 (action to invalidate decision made in violation of the OMA), MCL 15.271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.”
Leemreis v. Sherman Twp., 731 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, in the following section, MCL 15.271, the Legislature provided a distinctly different cause of action against public bodies for noncompliance with the act: (1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting attorney of the county in…”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 832 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “We affirm in part because we conclude that actual attorney fees recoverable under MCL 15.271(4) may not be clearly excessive and only fees for the OMA action are recoverable; however, we vacate the award and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion because an…”
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.