Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 2 / Act 89 of 1965
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 2.16 (2026)

State stone.

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

STATE STONE


Act 89 of 1965


2.16 State stone.

Sec. 1.

    The Petoskey stone is hereby adopted as the official stone of the state of Michigan.

History: 1965, Act 89, Eff. Mar. 31, 1966

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Mulcahy v. Verhines, 742 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mulcahy v. Verhines, 742 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “[1 Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, pp 221-222 (emphasis added).] Comment a to § 2.”
Plymouth Canton Cmty. Crier, Inc v. Prose, 619 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “To be adverse, the use must be made without authority and without permission of the property owner.”
Pine Bluffs Area Prop. Owners Ass'n v. DeWitt Landing & Dock Ass'n, 792 N.W.2d 18 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “” [Mulcahy v Verhines, 276 Mich App 693, 700 ; 742 NW2d 393 (2007), quoting 1 Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, pp 221-222 (emphasis omitted).] In its brief, plaintiff acknowledges that it is seeking relief under a theory of private nuisance.”
Kim Methner v. Vill. of Sanford (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “[citing 1 Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, pp 221– 222; emphasis omitted).] An easement by prescription results from use of another’s property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years.”
Brookfield East Lansing LLC v. 125 N Hagadorn LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[1 Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, pp 221-222.] Consistent with these classifications, [a]n easement by prescription results from use of another’s property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years.”
Mark & Nancy Real Est. Co. v. West Bloomfield Plaza LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “, 1 Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, comment a, p 222. -4- Accordingly, the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint.”
Mark & Nancy Real Est. Co. v. West Bloomfield Plaza LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “, 1 Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, comment a, p 222. -4- Accordingly, the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint.”
Carol Costello v. Indn LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” Mulcahy, 276 Mich App at 700 , quoting Restatement Property, 3d, Servitudes, § 2.16, pp 221-222 (emphasis removed). Mulcahy, 276 Mich App 693 , is strikingly similar to the present dispute.”
Prismatic Found. v. Eliot Street LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). ““If the agreement implied is for creation of a 8 Again, plaintiff asserts that it also had a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress; however, because the circuit court ruled that plaintiff has an easement for ingress and egress over Eliot Street arising out of the 1884…”
Comm. for Marshall-Not the Megasite v. City of Marshall (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “See Marshall Charter, § 2.16. The City’s charter also required the city council to adopt an annual budget as provided under Article IX.”
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.