Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 2 / Act 58 of 1965
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.15 (2026)

Brook trout as state fish; use of materials containing reference to trout.

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

STATE FISH


Act 58 of 1965


2.15 Brook trout as state fish; use of materials containing reference to trout.

Sec. 1.

    (1) The brook trout is designated as the official fish of the state of Michigan.

    (2) The state shall make use of all materials previously prepared that contain a reference to the trout as the official fish of the state before it prepares or has prepared new materials that contain a reference to the brook trout as the official fish of the state.

History: 1965, Act 58, Eff. Mar. 31, 1966 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 5, Imd. Eff. Feb. 5, 1988

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 303 Mich. App. 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 303 Mich. App. 28 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “See also 1 Restatement Property, Servitudes, 3d, § 2.15. [Emphasis added.] Our Court has relied on this quotation, or cases citing it, for the proposition that the reasonable-necessity standard applies to an easement by necessity.”
Chapdelaine v. Sochocki, 635 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See also 1 Restatement Property, Servitudes, 3d, § 2.15. An easement by necessity is based on the presumed intent of the parties and is supported by public policy that favors the productive and beneficial use of property.”
City of Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 294 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 2× “At its core, the doctrine is based on the notion that agency action must occur within the context of a rule of law previously formulated by a legislative body. * * * * * * "* * * When Congress is too divided or uncertain to articulate policy, it is no doubt easier to pass an…”
JAC Holding Enter., Inc. v. Atrium Capital Partners, LLC, 997 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “and there had been material adverse changes to [JAC’s financial position] since December 31, 2009, as specified in Section 2.”
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 339 F. Supp. 2d 944 (W.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 3× “) Section 2.15 reserves to CSI “the continuing right in perpetuity to utilize the Proprietary Rights” and to license others to utilize the Proprietary Rights with regard to “HZC Machines,” but neither CSI nor its affiliates and licensees has the right to grant any licenses or…”
McClain v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 665 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Patek, McLain, Granzotto & Stockmeyer, 1 Michigan Law of Damages and Other Remedies (ICLE), § 2.15, p 2-15 and § 2.17, p 2-16. These include: physical pain and suffering; mental anguish; fright and shock; denial of social *499 pleasure and enjoyment; embarrassment, humiliation,…”
Tomecek v. Bavas, 740 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “15, comment d, p 208, explains that utility easements have become increasingly necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of property: [T]he increasing dependence in recent years on electricity and telephone service, delivered through overland cables, justify [sic] the conclusion…”
Price v. High Pointe Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 583 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “Patek, McLain, Granzotto & Stockmeyer, 1 Michigan Law of Damages and Other Remedies (ICLE), § 2.15, p 2-15 and § 2.17, p 2-16. These include: physical pain and suffering; mental anguish; fright and shock; denial of social pleasure and enjoyment; embarrassment, humiliation, or…”
Tomecek v. Bavas, 740 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “208, explains that utility easements have become increasingly *337 necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of property: [T]he increasing dependence in recent years on electricity and telephone service, delivered through overland cables, justify [sic] the conclusion that implied…”
RPM Freight Sys., LLC v. Wesco Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “” Section 2.15 of the Beazley Policy provides the following: 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.15(a) — 1 case
JAC Holding Enter., Inc. v. Atrium Capital Partners, LLC, 997 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “and there had been material adverse changes to [JAC’s financial position] since December 31, 2009, as specified in Section 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.15(h) — 1 case
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 339 F. Supp. 2d 944 (W.D. Mich. 2004). “) Section 2.15 reserves to CSI “the continuing right in perpetuity to utilize the Proprietary Rights” and to license others to utilize the Proprietary Rights with regard to “HZC Machines,” but neither CSI nor its affiliates and licensees has the right to grant any licenses or…”
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.