Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 17 / Act 2 of 1921
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.1 (2026)

State administrative board; membership; powers and duties.

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

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD


Act 2 of 1921


17.1 State administrative board; membership; powers and duties.

Sec. 1.

    There is hereby created a board to be known and designated as the state administrative board of the state of Michigan. The state administrative board shall be composed of the governor, who shall act as chairperson, the lieutenant-governor, the secretary of state, the state treasurer, the attorney general, the director of the state transportation department, and the superintendent of public instruction, and shall possess the powers and perform the duties provided in this act.

History: 1921, Act 2, Imd. Eff. Feb. 23, 1921 ;-- CL 1929, 201 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 296, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 17.1 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 369, Imd. Eff. May 24, 2002

TransferOfPowers Notes:

    See MCL 16.208.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: House Speaker v. State Admin. Bd., 495 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
House Speaker v. State Admin. Bd., 495 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “[2] The State Administrative Board act, 1921 PA 2 , MCL 17.1 et seq.; MSA 3.261 et seq. [3] MCL 18.”
People v. Williams, 769 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “Indeed, in the seminal case used in LaFave, Criminal Procedure (3d ed), § 17.1(a), to illustrate the “common scheme or plan” aspect of the federal rule, the court held “that charges of bribery, tax evasion, and mail fraud were properly joined because they all were instances of…”
Florka v. City of Detroit, 120 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1963). · cites it 10× “Said application was made in accordance, with section 17.1(3) of the zoning ordinance, which relates to the approval of applications for authority to establish and operate in an MH zone certain designated businesses.”
City of Detroit v. S. Loewenstein & Son, 47 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 1951). · cites it 10× “We are in accord with the conclusion of the circuit judge in both the chancery case and the mandamus case, that the city plan commission did make the determination of approval as required by section 17.1 *365 (3) of the zoning ordinance.”
Taylor v. Auditor Gen., 103 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. 1960). · cites it 2× “[2] PA 1921, No 2 (CL 1948, § 17.1 et seq. [Stat Ann 1952 Rev § 3.261 et seq.”
Plassey v. S. Loewenstein & Son, 48 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. 1951). · cites it 2× “” The plant area is covered by section 17.1, subsection 4, of the Detroit zoning ordinance by which there is permitted: “All other uses not prohibited by law or other ordinances and not specifically permitted in other districts,” *529 subject to the approval of the city plan…”
Wells v. Salmo (In re Select One, Inc.), 556 B.R. 826 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Section 17.1 of the Purchase Agreement provided that the “Closing Date” would occur within 15 days after the MLCC’s approval.”
51382 Gratiot Avenue Holdings, LLC v. Chesterfield Dev. Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 384 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “# 36-2 (“This Guaranty shall be deemed to be a contract entered into pursuant to the laws of the Property State and shall in all respects be governed, construed, applied and enforced in accordance with applicable federal law and the laws of the Property State, without reference…”
Luteran v. Ford Motor Co., 21 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. 1946). “…8312, as amended by Act No. 241, Pub. Acts 1943 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1945, § 8310, 8312, Stat. Ann. 1945 Cum. Supp, §§ 17.1, 17.3).—Reporter.”
Hilliard v. Walker's Party Store, Inc., 903 F. Supp. 1162 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “To state a claim for procedural due process, a plaintiff must establish both that he has been deprived of life or property, or a constitutionally recognized liberty interest, and that such deprivation has been effected without due process.”
Benesh v. Frenchtown Twp., 228 N.W.2d 459 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “Section 17.1 of Frenchtown Ordinance No. 14 provides as follows: "The Township Board may from time to time amend, supplement or change the regulations and boundaries of districts or provisions of this ordinance in the manner prescribed by Act 184 of Public Acts of Michigan for…”
Baruk v. Rogovein, 96 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 4× “1, entitled “Regular Hearings,” provides: “Unless otherwise directed by the commission and except as hereinafter provided, regular hearings shall be held by the staff on request for findings and approval under * * * section 17.1, paragraph (3) of the zoning ordinance, provided:…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.1(3) — 3 cases
Florka v. City of Detroit, 120 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. 1963). “Said application was made in accordance, with section 17.1(3) of the zoning ordinance, which relates to the approval of applications for authority to establish and operate in an MH zone certain designated businesses.”
City of Detroit v. S. Loewenstein & Son, 47 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 1951). “We are in accord with the conclusion of the circuit judge in both the chancery case and the mandamus case, that the city plan commission did make the determination of approval as required by section 17.1 *365 (3) of the zoning ordinance.”
Baruk v. Rogovein, 96 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 1959). “1, entitled “Regular Hearings,” provides: “Unless otherwise directed by the commission and except as hereinafter provided, regular hearings shall be held by the staff on request for findings and approval under * * * section 17.1, paragraph (3) of the zoning ordinance, provided:…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.1(a) — 1 case
People v. Williams, 769 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. 2009). “Indeed, in the seminal case used in LaFave, Criminal Procedure (3d ed), § 17.1(a), to illustrate the “common scheme or plan” aspect of the federal rule, the court held “that charges of bribery, tax evasion, and mail fraud were properly joined because they all were instances of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.1(b) — 1 case
People v. Williams, 769 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. 2009). “Indeed, in the seminal case used in LaFave, Criminal Procedure (3d ed), § 17.1(a), to illustrate the “common scheme or plan” aspect of the federal rule, the court held “that charges of bribery, tax evasion, and mail fraud were properly joined because they all were instances of…”
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.