Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 16 / Act 380 of 1965
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 16.401 (2026)

Head of department of education.

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

EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1965


Act 380 of 1965


16.401 Head of department of education.

Sec. 301.

    The head of the department of education is the state board of education established by the state Constitution of 1963.

History: 1965, Act 380, Imd. Eff. July 23, 1965

PopularName Notes:

Act 380
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1954–1999 · leading case: Straus v. Governor, 592 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Straus v. Governor, 592 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “§ 16.401; MSA 3.29(301). [8] Similarly, the *60 functions transferred by Executive Order Nos.”
Straus v. Governor, 583 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 16.401; M.S.A. § 3.29(301). [8] Similarly, the *527 functions transferred by Executive Order Nos.”
Evans v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 178 N.W.2d 173 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “, Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 16.401, et seq.), 7 it likewise became the policy of this state to provide protection, welfare, and assistance to dependent children.”
Munson v. Cnty. of Menominee, 124 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. 1963). “, as amended (Stat Ann 1960 Kev and Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 16.401 et seq.).”
Lewis v. Genesee Cnty., 121 N.W.2d 417 (Mich. 1963). · cites it 2× “, as amended (Stat Ann 1960 Rev and Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 16.401 et seq. ). [**] See CL 1948, §§ 400.”
State v. Pell, 62 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. 1954). “[Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 16.401 et seq.]), contain no ambiguities nor inconsistencies.”
In Re Linstead Est., 66 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. 1954). “[Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 16.401 et seq. ]), contain no ambiguities nor inconsistencies.”
Dep't of Revenue v. Linstead, 340 Mich. 653 (Mich. 1954). “[Stat Add 1950 Rev §16.401 et seq.)), contain no ambiguities nor inconsistencies.”
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.