STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
Act 2 of 1921
17.2 State administrative board; procedure, meetings, and conduct of business; conducting business at public meeting; notice of meeting; quorum; actions of board; governor's veto; implementation of orders; compensation and expenses.
Sec. 2.
(1) The board may adopt rules governing its procedure, provide for the calling and holding of regular and special meetings, and provide for the general conduct of its business and affairs. The business which the board may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the board held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 15.261 to 15.275 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of the time, date, and place of the meeting shall be given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a smaller number may adjourn. An action of the board shall require a concurring vote of a majority of the board, and shall be final, subject to the governor's veto, unless reconsidered or rescinded at a subsequent meeting of the board at which there shall be present as many members as were present when the original vote was taken.
(2) The governor may veto an action of the board within 10 days after its passage. By a concurring vote of 5 members of the board, taken within 10 days after the exercise of a veto, the veto of the governor may be overruled.
(3) The board shall direct the manner in which orders made by it shall be implemented, and may employ and fix the compensation of agents and assistants necessary to carry out duties imposed by this act. The compensation of all employees of the board shall be paid from the state treasury in the same manner as the compensation of other state employees is paid.
(4) Expenses necessarily incurred by a member of the board or by a board employee while traveling in the performance of an official duty imposed by this act shall be paid in the same manner as are the expenses incurred by other state officers and employees.
History: 1921, Act 2, Imd. Eff. Feb. 23, 1921 ;-- Am. 1927, Act 12, Imd. Eff. Mar. 25, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 202 ;-- CL 1948, 17.2 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 133, Imd. Eff. June 27, 1967 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 154, Imd. Eff. Nov. 7, 1977
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case:
Moning v. Alfono, 254 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. 1977).
Moning v. Alfono, 254 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “" 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 16.10, p 936. Similarly see, Prosser, supra, § 37, p 207; Detroit & M R Co v Van Steinburg, 17 Mich 99, 120 (1868).”
Michigan Prot. & Advocacy Serv., Inc. v. Babin, 799 F. Supp. 695 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
“The Court is aware of no § 3604(e) decision in which the actual or expected profit was other than commission fees or other financial gain normally accruing to real estate brokers.”
Reminga v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Mich. 1978).
“Although the language of § 17.2(a) appears to indicate that guy-wires are indeed part of the antenna structure, other sections pertaining to lighting of the antenna structure seem to apply a much narrower interpretation.”
Trimper v. Headapohl, 412 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“2, provides in part: Officers encountering a person who is incapacitated due to alcohol, and has his mental and physical functioning so impaired that he poses an immediate or substantial danger to his own health and safety or is endangering the health and safety to the public,…”
City of Kentwood v. Police Officers Labor Council, 766 N.W.2d 869 (Mich. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Section 17.2 of the CBA provides: The Employer reserves the right to establish reasonable departmental rules, regulations, policies and procedures not inconsistent with the provision of this Agreement.”
Wnc Hous. Lp v. Shelborne Dev. Co. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “1 of this Agreement) at a Partner’s meeting held in accordance with Section 17.2 of this Agreement.” Defendants do not dispute that removal occurred after a proper meeting on January 5, 2012.”
Hart v. Presque Isle, Twp. of (E.D. Mich. 2024).
· cites it 2× “The ZBA ultimately determined that Administrator Lang should not have issued Plaintiffs’ 2020 Permit because Plaintiffs’ application did not include “scaled drawing[s]” of, among other things, the “natural features, sewers, [and] topography,” of the Property, as required by…”
Pearson Constr. Co. Inc v. the Dailey Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“1 states, “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor and Owner that all material and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified, and that all of the Subcontract Work shall be of good quality, free from faults and defects and in conformance with the Contract…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.2(B) — 1 case
Hart v. Presque Isle, Twp. of (E.D. Mich. 2024).
“The ZBA ultimately determined that Administrator Lang should not have issued Plaintiffs’ 2020 Permit because Plaintiffs’ application did not include “scaled drawing[s]” of, among other things, the “natural features, sewers, [and] topography,” of the Property, as required by…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.2(a) — 1 case
Reminga v. United States, 448 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Mich. 1978).
“Although the language of § 17.2(a) appears to indicate that guy-wires are indeed part of the antenna structure, other sections pertaining to lighting of the antenna structure seem to apply a much narrower interpretation.”
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.