EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION ORDER
E.R.O. No. 1997-1
2.111 Renaming of Michigan travel bureau as Travel Michigan.
WHEREAS, Michigan's tourist industry is crucial to the economic well-being of the state; and,
WHEREAS, the role of the Michigan Travel Bureau in marketing Michigan and bolstering tourism is an essential ingredient in assuring a strong tourism industry; and,
WHEREAS, the Michigan Travel Bureau was created by Act No. 145 of the Public Acts of 1975, as amended, being section 2.102a of the Michigan Compiled Laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, John Engler, Governor of the State of Michigan, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963 and the laws of the State of Michigan, do hereby order the following:
1. The Michigan Travel Bureau is hereby renamed Travel Michigan.
2. Any and all statutory references to the Travel Bureau or Michigan Travel Bureau are hereinafter to be deemed a reference to Travel Michigan.
In fulfillment of the requirement of Article V, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, the provisions of this Executive Order shall become effective sixty (60) days from the filing of this Order.
History: 1997, E.R.O. No. 1997-1, Eff. Mar. 17, 1997
Notes of Decisions
Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 728 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d 385 (2000), quoting MCL 2.111(B). Medical malpractice claims must be pleaded so as to "`advise the defendant with reasonable certainty, according to the circumstances of the case, of the facts upon which plaintiff proposes to rely, and will seek to prove.”
Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency, 850 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 2.111(F)(3). The statement fails to explain why defendants believed plaintiff “failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 600.”
Jesperson v. Auto Club Ins., 858 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 2.111(F)(3). The statement fails to explain why defendants believed plaintiff “failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 600.”
Vhs of Michigan Inc v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion to amend, arguing that the trial court should find defendant waived fraud as an affirmative defense because defendant failed to plead fraud with particularity in a responsive pleading, here its answer to the complaint, as is required under…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.111(B) — 1 case
Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 728 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“2d 385 (2000), quoting MCL 2.111(B). Medical malpractice claims must be pleaded so as to "`advise the defendant with reasonable certainty, according to the circumstances of the case, of the facts upon which plaintiff proposes to rely, and will seek to prove.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.111(F)(2) — 1 case
Vhs of Michigan Inc v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion to amend, arguing that the trial court should find defendant waived fraud as an affirmative defense because defendant failed to plead fraud with particularity in a responsive pleading, here its answer to the complaint, as is required under…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.111(F)(3) — 2 cases
Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency, 850 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 2.111(F)(3). The statement fails to explain why defendants believed plaintiff “failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 600.”
Jesperson v. Auto Club Ins., 858 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 2.111(F)(3). The statement fails to explain why defendants believed plaintiff “failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 600.”
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.