PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AND PRIVATE ROADS
Act 283 of 1909
229.1 Application for private road; notice.
Sec. 1.
When an application is made to the township supervisor for a private road, he shall give notice in writing to the owner or occupant of the land over which the road is proposed to be laid out, to meet on a day and at a place certain, which shall not be more than 10 nor less than 5 days from the time of service of the notice, for the purpose of aiding in the striking of a jury to determine the necessity of the road. If the land over which it is proposed to lay the road is nonresident and the owner thereof does not reside in the county, the notice shall be served in the same manner as is provided in laying out public roads, and proof of service or posting shall be made in like manner.
History: 1909, Act 283, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- CL 1915, 4447 ;-- CL 1929, 4062 ;-- CL 1948, 229.1 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 375, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973
Constitutionality Notes:
The Opening of Private Roads and Temporary Highways Act, MCL 229.1 et seq. is unconstitutional because the act authorizes a taking and the taking primarily benefits a private rather than a public purpose and provides for an unconstitutional taking under Const 1963, art X, § 2. Tolksdorf v Griffith, 464 Mich 1; 626 NW2d 163 (2000).
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 1 of Ch. VIII of Act 243 of 1881; How., § 1388; CL 1897, § 4142.
Notes of Decisions
Tolksdorf v. Griffith, 626 N.W.2d 163 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 4× “MCL 229.1; MSA 9.281. A jury consisting of property owners determines whether the road is necessary.”
White Pine Hunting Club v. Schalkofski, 237 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiff appeals as of right from an August 30, 1974, judgment dismissing its declaratory judgment action which had alleged that MCLA 229.1; MSA 9.281 was unconstitutional.”
Bieker v. Suttons Bay Twp. Supervisor, 496 N.W.2d 398 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Bieker, brought this action for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant, the supervisor of Suttons Bay Township in Leelanau County, to comply with the provisions of the opening of private roads and temporary highways act, MCL 229.1 et seq.; MSA 9.281 et seq. The trial court…”
Michigan Oil Co. v. Nat. Resources Comm'n, 249 N.W.2d 135 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “[2] While my brothers find the action of the commission to be properly founded in the duty imposed upon the commission by 1921 PA 17 ; MCLA 229.1 et seq.; MSA 13.1 et seq., to manage public lands under its control, the commission itself made factual findings only of "damage to…”
McKeigan v. Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor, 587 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the order denying their request for a writ of mandamus compelling defendant to comply with his statutory duties under the opening of private roads and temporary highways act, MCL 229.1 et seq.; MSA 9.281 et seq. For the reasons stated below, we…”
Silver Springs Hunting Club v. Schultz, 186 N.W.2d 410 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 6× “Raymond Schultz, purported township highway commissioner, of their application to lay out a private road in accordance with MCLA § 229.1 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.281).”
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.