Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.3 (2026)
Notice to all surety companies.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
BONDS OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Act 10 of 1969
15.3 Notice to all surety companies.
Sec. 3.
In obtaining bond coverage under this act, the department of administration shall notify all surety companies authorized to do business in this state of the provisions of this act and shall contract for adequate coverage.
History: 1969, Act 10, Imd. Eff. May 7, 1969
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2023 · leading case: Grano v. Ortisi, 272 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Grano v. Ortisi, 272 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “"The Municipal Judge (justice of the peace) shall, in addition, have the qualifications for that office prescribed in Section 15.3.” Section 15.3 reads: "The presiding officer of the Court shall meet the eligibility requirements contained in Section 5.”
Brouwer v. Kent Cnty. Clerk, 141 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. 1966). “’ “ 'Section 15.3. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, the representatives of the city on the board of supervisors shall perform the statutory duties of supervisors.”
City of Berkley v. Holmes, 191 N.W.2d 561 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “However, if, from the outset, defendant intended the city to pay his legal expenses, then he was bound to follow the city charter and ordinance provisions which govern contracting procedures, City of Berkley Charter, ch 15, § 15.”
People v. Glass, 597 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “” 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (Criminal Practice Series), § 15.3(c), pp 293-294. In this regard, the federal courts have generally held that the Sixth Amendment entitles defendants in federal criminal cases to a grand and petit jury selected at random from a fair cross…”
People of Michigan v. Craig Ivan Hill (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” Const 1963, art 1, § 15.3 The prohibition of double jeopardy “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022). “But it is arguable that his crime should be manslaughter rather than murder, on the theory that the pressure upon him, although not enough to justify his act, should serve at least to mitigate it to something less than murder.”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022). “But it is arguable that his crime should be manslaughter rather than murder, on the theory that the pressure upon him, although not enough to justify his act, should serve at least to mitigate it to something less than murder.”
Little Caesar Enter., Inc. v. S & S Pizza Enter., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2023). “27-4 § 15.3, Pg ID 225.) The Franchise Agreements also contemplated damages for any premature termination of the contract in the form of liquidated damages paid to LCE.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.3(c) — 3 cases
People v. Glass, 597 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “” 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (Criminal Practice Series), § 15.3(c), pp 293-294. In this regard, the federal courts have generally held that the Sixth Amendment entitles defendants in federal criminal cases to a grand and petit jury selected at random from a fair cross…”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022). “But it is arguable that his crime should be manslaughter rather than murder, on the theory that the pressure upon him, although not enough to justify his act, should serve at least to mitigate it to something less than murder.”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022). “But it is arguable that his crime should be manslaughter rather than murder, on the theory that the pressure upon him, although not enough to justify his act, should serve at least to mitigate it to something less than murder.”
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.