Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 17 / Act 266 of 1967
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454 (2026)

Use of proceeds of loan restricted; revised municipal finance act inapplicable; issuance of bonds and notes subject to agency financing reporting act.

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

STATE INDEBTEDNESS


Act 266 of 1967


17.454 Use of proceeds of loan restricted; revised municipal finance act inapplicable; issuance of bonds and notes subject to agency financing reporting act.

Sec. 4.

    (1) The proceeds of any loan under this act shall not be used to pay in advance appropriations to any municipality as defined in section 103 of the revised municipal finance act, 2001 PA 34, MCL 141.2103.

    (2) Bonds, notes, and loans issued under this act are not subject to the revised municipal finance act, 2001 PA 34, MCL 141.2101 to 141.2821.

    (3) The issuance of bonds and notes under this act is subject to the agency financing reporting act.

History: 1967, Act 266, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1967 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 416, Imd. Eff. June 3, 2002

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases, 1940–1998 · leading case: Grandville Mun. Exec. Ass'n v. City of Grandville, 553 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grandville Mun. Exec. Ass'n v. City of Grandville, 553 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 6× “§ 17.454(10.4) (emphasis supplied).] III In the instant case, the MERC disagreed with the city that the PERA, by its terms, forbids executive employees from belonging to collective bargaining units.”
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 16× “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454 (14.2)]) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
Judges of the 74th Jud. Dist. v. Bay Cnty., 190 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 5× “(Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.454[1] et seq.) for the purpose of mediating labor disputes.”
Smigel v. Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist., 202 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 8× “16[3] (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.454[17][3]), which makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in regard to hire, terms or other conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.”
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 17.454(25)(e). [6] Detroit Symphony, supra at 121 , 223 N.”
Local 170, Transp. Workers Union of Am. v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 34 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. 1948). · cites it 4× “§§ 17.454 (1)-17.454 (21)]), known as the Bonine-Tripp act (Act No.”
Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 551 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 3× “§ 17.454(10.4) (regulating the composition of bargaining units), M.”
Local No. 1644 v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 116 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. 1962). · cites it 3× “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev §17.454(14.2)1) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Detroit, 551 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 17.454(1).] The MERC has been endowed with a large amount of power to help it facilitate the resolution of labor disputes.”
Lafayette Dramatic Prods., Inc. v. Ferentz, 9 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. 1943). · cites it 2× “The trial court’s opinion, filed May 19, 1942, determined that a “labor dispute” was involved; that the contract in question was free from duress or coercion and was valid; and that plaintiff’s bill of complaint should be dismissed.”
Labor Med. Bd. v. Jackson Cty. Rd. Comrs., 114 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. 1962). · cites it 2× “11 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev §§ 17.454[11], 17.454[12]). [***] CL 1948, § 423.”
Gaidamavice v. Newaygo Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 67 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. 1954). · cites it 2× “11 [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454(11) and § 17.454(12)]), mentioned in the foregoing quotation, have to do with the steps that are required to be taken by the mediation board upon receipt of' the notice mentioned in section 7.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(1) — 5 cases
Grandville Mun. Exec. Ass'n v. City of Grandville, 553 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. 1996). “§ 17.454(10.4) (emphasis supplied).] III In the instant case, the MERC disagreed with the city that the PERA, by its terms, forbids executive employees from belonging to collective bargaining units.”
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Detroit, 551 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. 1996). “§ 17.454(1).] The MERC has been endowed with a large amount of power to help it facilitate the resolution of labor disputes.”
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454 (14.2)]) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
Local No. 1644 v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 116 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. 1962). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev §17.454(14.2)1) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
Labor Relations Div., Michigan Road Builders' Ass'n v. State Labor Mediation Bd., 47 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1951).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(10) — 1 case
Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 551 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 1996). “§ 17.454(10.4) (regulating the composition of bargaining units), M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(11) — 1 case
Gaidamavice v. Newaygo Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 67 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. 1954). “11 [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454(11) and § 17.454(12)]), mentioned in the foregoing quotation, have to do with the steps that are required to be taken by the mediation board upon receipt of' the notice mentioned in section 7.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(12) — 2 cases
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Detroit, 551 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. 1996). “§ 17.454(1).] The MERC has been endowed with a large amount of power to help it facilitate the resolution of labor disputes.”
Gaidamavice v. Newaygo Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 67 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. 1954). “11 [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454(11) and § 17.454(12)]), mentioned in the foregoing quotation, have to do with the steps that are required to be taken by the mediation board upon receipt of' the notice mentioned in section 7.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(14) — 1 case
Local No. 1644 v. Oakwood Hosp. Corp., 116 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. 1962). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev §17.454(14.2)1) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(17) — 2 cases
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454 (14.2)]) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
Sitek v. Forest City Enter., Inc., 587 F. Supp. 1381 (E.D. Mich. 1984).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(18) — 1 case
Consumers Sand & Gravel Co. v. Kalamazoo Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 32 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 1948).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(2) — 2 cases
Lillard v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 110 N.W.2d 910 (Mich. 1961).
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454 (14.2)]) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(2)(e) — 1 case
Grandville Mun. Exec. Ass'n v. City of Grandville, 553 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. 1996). “§ 17.454(10.4) (emphasis supplied).] III In the instant case, the MERC disagreed with the city that the PERA, by its terms, forbids executive employees from belonging to collective bargaining units.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(23) — 1 case
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454 (14.2)]) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(25) — 2 cases
Labor Relations Div., Michigan Road Builders' Ass'n v. State Labor Mediation Bd., 47 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1951).
Mueller v. T. A. Grissom, Inc., 167 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(25)(e) — 1 case
Goff v. Bil-Mar Foods, Inc., 563 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1997). “§ 17.454(25)(e). [6] Detroit Symphony, supra at 121 , 223 N.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(3) — 1 case
Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Labor Mediation Bd., 171 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(30) — 1 case
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Alpena Cmty. Coll., 577 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. 1998).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(8) — 2 cases
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). “13a [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454 (14.2)]) to impose such obligation in labor disputes involving hospital or public utility employees.”
Eglash v. Detroit Inst. of Tech., 134 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1965).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 17.454(9) — 1 case
Salenius v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 189 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
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.