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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273 (2026)

Violation; liability.

✓ 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


15.273 Violation; liability.

Sec. 13.

    (1)  A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be personally liable in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00 total, plus court costs and actual attorney fees to a person or group of persons bringing the action.

    (2) Not more than 1 action under this section shall be brought against a public official for a single meeting. An action under this section shall be commenced within 180 days after the date of the violation which gives rise to the cause of action.

    (3) An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action for injunctive or exemplary relief under section 11.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.273 (action for damages for intentional OMA violation) “create[] a three-tiered enforcement scheme for private litigants.”
Michael Zoran v. Twp. of Cottrellville, 913 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “263(5) against the township, and Count IV alleged that Lisco intentionally violated the OMA in contravention of MCL 15.273. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition with regard to Counts I to III, determining that the township violated the OMA.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 6× “271; MCL 15.273. 24 MCL 15.270(1). 25 MCL 15.271(1).”
Leemreis v. Sherman Twp., 731 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “] MCL 15.273, meanwhile, sets forth a third and distinctly different cause of action against a public official who intentionally violates the act.”
Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 6× “Finally, Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273 provides that public officials found to have intentionally violated the act may be personally liable for damages not to exceed $500 plus actual costs and attorneys fees, and such an action must be brought within 180 days after the date of the…”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “240(7) (permitting actual or compensatory damages as well as punitive damages for refusing or delaying disclosure of a public record under the act); the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.273 (permitting the recovery of up to $500 in damages against a public official for intentional…”
Wilkins v. Gagliardi, 556 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “It further found that, because the violation was intentional, it could impose a maximum penalty against defendant pursuant to MCL 15.273; MSA 4.1800(23) of up to $500 plus costs and actual attorney fees.”
Duane Lockwood v. Twp. of Ellington, 917 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 787 ); (2) seek actual and exemplary damages against a public official for intentional violations of OMA ( MCL 15.273(1) ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App.”
Rasch v. City of East Jordan, 367 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff requested in his complaint $500 in damages pursu *339 ant to MCL 15.273; MSA 4.1800(23). An action under that section must be commenced within 180 days after the date of the violation.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd., 843 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” MCL 15.273 permits a plaintiff to file suit against a public official for intentional violations of the OMA.”
Ritchie v. Coldwater Cmty. Schs., 947 F. Supp. 2d 791 (W.D. Mich. 2013). “§ 15.273(1). Section 3(5) of the OMA provides that “[a] person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established by the public body.”
Meyers v. Patchkowski, 549 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “MCL 15.273; MSA 4.1800(23). Because Patchkowski did not request civil damages, and did not join an action for damages to this action for injunctive relief, her argument is irrelevant.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273(1) — 26 cases
Michael Zoran v. Twp. of Cottrellville, 913 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “263(5) against the township, and Count IV alleged that Lisco intentionally violated the OMA in contravention of MCL 15.273. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition with regard to Counts I to III, determining that the township violated the OMA.”
Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trs., 860 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. 2014). “271; MCL 15.273. 24 MCL 15.270(1). 25 MCL 15.271(1).”
Citizens for a Better Algonac Cmty. Schs. v. Algonac Cmty. Schs., 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “271 (action for injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing OMA violation and to compel compliance), and MCL 15.273 (action for damages for intentional OMA violation) “create[] a three-tiered enforcement scheme for private litigants.”
Duane Lockwood v. Twp. of Ellington, 917 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 787 ); (2) seek actual and exemplary damages against a public official for intentional violations of OMA ( MCL 15.273(1) ; Leemreis , 273 Mich. App.”
Leemreis v. Sherman Twp., 731 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “] MCL 15.273, meanwhile, sets forth a third and distinctly different cause of action against a public official who intentionally violates the act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273(2) — 5 cases
Rasch v. City of East Jordan, 367 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Plaintiff requested in his complaint $500 in damages pursu *339 ant to MCL 15.273; MSA 4.1800(23). An action under that section must be commenced within 180 days after the date of the violation.”
Stephen Emsley v. Lyon Charter Twp. Bd. of Trs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Stephen Emsley v. Lyon Charter Twp. Bd. of Trs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Heart of the Lakes Cmty. v. West Bloomfield Sch. Dist. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Marc Edwards v. Oakland Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273(3) — 2 cases
Meyers v. Patchkowski, 549 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “MCL 15.273; MSA 4.1800(23). Because Patchkowski did not request civil damages, and did not join an action for damages to this action for injunctive relief, her argument is irrelevant.”
Robin Spalding v. Mary K Swiacki (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.273(l) — 1 case
Leemreis v. Sherman Twp., 731 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “] MCL 15.273, meanwhile, sets forth a third and distinctly different cause of action against a public official who intentionally violates the act.”
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.