PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION ACT
Act 62 of 1933
211.217 Orders of board; appeal to state tax commission; judicial review.
Sec. 17.
Within 15 days after the giving of notice of such final order any aggrieved local unit may appeal in writing to the state tax commission. The commission shall give at least 10 days' written notice to all interested parties of the time and place for a hearing on such appeal, and at the hearing shall give all such parties an opportunity to be heard. The commission shall apply the method provided in section 11 for the division of the net limitation tax rate, and if it finds a material mistake of fact, fraud or an error of law in the proceedings under this act, may make an order increasing or decreasing the maximum tax rate of any local unit as ordered by the board, and adjusting the tax rates of other local units affected by such action. The commission shall give written notice of its order to all interested parties within 15 days after such hearing. The order of the commission, or of the board in case of no appeal, shall be final and shall not be reviewable in any court by mandamus, certiorari, appeal or any other method of direct or collateral attack, nor shall any court of this state issue any injunction to prohibit the carrying out of any order made under this act.
History: 1933, Act 62, Imd. Eff. Apr. 25, 1933 ;-- Am. 1934, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 30, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 1934 ;-- CL 1948, 211.217 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 278, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964
Notes of Decisions
Wayne Cnty. v. Michigan State Tax Comm'n, 682 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Almira Twp v Benzie Co Tax Allocation Bd, 80 Mich App 755, 761-762 ; 265 NW2d 39 (1978), is factually distinguishable and is predicated on a statute, MCL 211.217, that addresses a standard of review not applicable here.”
Jefferson Schs. v. Detroit Edison Co., 397 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“Finally, the fact that a school district is given express authority to initiate appeals as to the level of assessments in some cases, but is not given such authority in other instances, reinforces our interpretation of the statute.”
Imlay Twp. Primary Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Edn., 102 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. 1960).
“State Tax Commission, 291 Mich 50 , this Court was called upon to consider in array against article 7 of our Constitution the concluding sentence of section 17 of PA 1934 (1st Ex Sess), No 30 (CL 1948, § 211.217 [Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 7.77]). Such sentence read as follows:…”
Almira Twp. v. Benzie Cnty. Tax Allocation Bd., 265 N.W.2d 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “That order stated that the purpose of the hearing was "to take testimony, to examine the basis of Petitioner’s allegations and the nature of proofs pursuant to MCLA 211.217; MSA 7.77, tending to show 'a material mistake of fact, fraud or error of law’ in the division of the net…”
Imlay Twp. Primary Sch. Dist. No. 5 v. State Bd. of Educ., 359 Mich. 478 (Mich. 1960).
“State Tax Commission, 291 Mich 50 , this Court was called upon to consider — in array against article 7 of our Constitution — the concluding sentence of section 17 of PA 1934 (1st Ex Sess), No 30 (CL 1948, § 211.217 [Stat Ann 1950 Rev §7.77]). Such sentence read as follows: “The…”
Robert a D'Anniballe v. Twp. of Lyon (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “” Petitioner averred that respondent’s TCV assessment was too high and therefore violated the Michigan Constitution because the TV would be over 50% of the most accurate estimate of the home’s TCV (his own estimate).”
Robert a D'Anniballe v. Twp. of Lyon (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “” Petitioner averred that respondent’s TCV assessment was too high and therefore violated the Michigan Constitution because the TV would be over 50% of the most accurate estimate of the home’s TCV (his own estimate).”
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.