PLANT REHABILITATION AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Act 198 of 1974
207.551 Meanings of certain words and phrases.
Sec. 1.
The words and phrases defined in sections 2 and 3 have the meanings respectively ascribed to them for the purposes of this act.
History: 1974, Act 198, Imd. Eff. July 9, 1974
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of department of commerce under Act 198 of 1974 to the chief executive officer of the Michigan jobs commission, see E.R.O. No. 1994-8, compiled at MCL 408.47 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
PopularName Notes:
Act 198
Notes of Decisions
Great Lakes Sales, Inc v. State Tax Comm'n, 486 N.W.2d 367 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Respondent, the State Tax Commission, appeals as of right a December 28, 1990, decision by the Kent Circuit Court reversing the commission’s denial of petitioner’s application for an industrial facilities exemption certificate pursuant to the rehabilitation and industrial…”
Superior Hotels, LLC v. MacKinaw Twp., 765 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“Section 154 also includes property subject to taxation under 1974 PA 198 , MCL 207.551 to 207.572 (relating to industrial development districts), 1905 PA 282 , MCL 207.”
Bendix Saf. Restraints Grp., Allied Signal, Inc v. City of Troy, 544 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “In Marposs, however, this Court suggested that even if the delegation of power were constitutional, the City of Troy's actions were, nonetheless, either "arbitrary and capricious" or constituted an abuse of discretion.”
Ypsilanti Twp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 506 N.W.2d 556 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“Over the years the township granted defendant eleven tax abatements under MCL 207.551 et seq.; MSA 7.800(1) et seq.”
Ford Motor Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 732 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“First, in the DD case, Redford Charter Township (Redford) argues, as an alternative basis for affirmance, that DD was estopped from asserting to the STC that the primary purpose of its new equipment was to control air pollution issuing from its plant, because DD had allegedly…”
Bar Processing Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 430 N.W.2d 753 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“” In its brief, the stc asserts that to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the purpose of the plant rehabilitation and industrial development districts act, 1974 PA 198 ; MCL 207.551 et seq.; MSA 7.800(1) et seq.”
Orion Twp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 489 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“Pursuant to the creation of this district and the operation of 1974 PA 198 , currently codified at MCL 207.551 et seq.) MSA 7.800(1) et seq.”
Jones v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 822 F. Supp. 396 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§§ 207.551 et seq. (“the Plan Rehabilitation and Industrial Development Districts Act”) does not involve the formation of any contractual relationship.”
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.