ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
Act 306 of 1969
24.231 Rules; continuation; amendment; rescission.
Sec. 31.
(1) Rules which became effective before July 1, 1970 continue in effect until amended or rescinded.
(2) When a law authorizing or directing an agency to promulgate rules is repealed and substantially the same rule-making power or duty is vested in the same or a successor agency by a new provision of law or the function of the agency to which the rules are related is transferred to another agency, by law or executive order, the existing rules of the original agency relating thereto continue in effect until amended or rescinded, and the agency or successor agency may rescind any rule relating to the function. When a law creating an agency or authorizing or directing it to promulgate rules is repealed or the agency is abolished and substantially the same rule-making power or duty is not vested in the same or a successor agency by a new provision of law and the function of the agency to which the rules are related is not transferred to another agency, the existing applicable rules of the original agency are automatically rescinded as of the effective date of the repeal of such law or the abolition of the agency.
(3) The rescission of a rule does not revive a rule which was previously rescinded.
(4) The amendment or rescission of a valid rule does not defeat or impair a right accrued, or affect a penalty incurred, under the rule.
(5) Except in the case of the amendment of rules concerning inmates as described in section 7(k), a rule may be amended or rescinded by another rule which constitutes the whole or a part of a filing of rules or as a result of an act of the legislature.
History: 1969, Act 306, Eff. July 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 40, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 288, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1989
PopularName Notes:
Act 306
PopularName Notes:
APA
Notes of Decisions
Clonlara, Inc v. State Bd. of Educ., 501 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See chapter 3, Procedures for Processing and Publishing Rules, MCL 24.231 et seq.; MSA 3.560(131) et seq.”
Greenfield Constr. Co. v. Dep't of State Highways, 261 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 1978).
· cites it 2× “The standard contract specifications define "engineer" as "[t]he Director of the Department or the Engineer of the Department designated by the Director" responsible for engineering supervision of the project.”
Henderson v. Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist., 226 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 5× “That such contention, and consequently the ruling of the trial court to the extent it relied on this ground, is erroneous is evident when one considers MCLA 24.231(1); MSA 3.560(131X1): "Rules which became effective before July 1, 1970 continue in effect until amended or…”
McIlmurray v. Michigan Racing Comm'r, 343 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “I find it difficult to believe that the Legislature intended the result which follows from the majority's decision to read § 23 as having superseded pre-existing regulations. Under the majority's reading of the section, the use of all substances "other than food" which could…”
City of Livonia v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 333 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“Section 31(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1969, MCL 24.231(2); MSA 3.560(131X2), provides in part as follows: "(2) When a law authorizing or directing an agency to promulgate rules is repealed and substantially the same rule-making power or duty is vested in the same…”
People v. Hurn, 518 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“Had the Legislature repealed rather than simply amended the prior provisions, the *622 administrative rules would have remained effective pursuant to MCL 24.231; MSA 3.560(131). The people next argue that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied the people’s…”
Webster v. Sec'y of State, 382 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Subsection 2 of the amended section deleted the requirement that the hearing be held within 30 days of receipt of the request for a hearing: "(2) If a hearing is requested, the secretary of state shall hold the hearing in the same manner and under the same conditions as provided…”
City of Livonia v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 328 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“See MCL 24.231(2); MSA 3.560(131)(2). Forbidding the department from issuing the specific licenses involved in these cases is not an appropriate remedy for the alleged violation of MCL 400.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.231(1) — 1 case
Henderson v. Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist., 226 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“That such contention, and consequently the ruling of the trial court to the extent it relied on this ground, is erroneous is evident when one considers MCLA 24.231(1); MSA 3.560(131X1): "Rules which became effective before July 1, 1970 continue in effect until amended or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.231(2) — 4 cases
City of Livonia v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 333 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“Section 31(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1969, MCL 24.231(2); MSA 3.560(131X2), provides in part as follows: "(2) When a law authorizing or directing an agency to promulgate rules is repealed and substantially the same rule-making power or duty is vested in the same…”
McIlmurray v. Michigan Racing Comm'r, 343 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“I find it difficult to believe that the Legislature intended the result which follows from the majority's decision to read § 23 as having superseded pre-existing regulations. Under the majority's reading of the section, the use of all substances "other than food" which could…”
City of Livonia v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 328 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“See MCL 24.231(2); MSA 3.560(131)(2). Forbidding the department from issuing the specific licenses involved in these cases is not an appropriate remedy for the alleged violation of MCL 400.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.231(4) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.231(5) — 3 cases
Henderson v. Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist., 226 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“That such contention, and consequently the ruling of the trial court to the extent it relied on this ground, is erroneous is evident when one considers MCLA 24.231(1); MSA 3.560(131X1): "Rules which became effective before July 1, 1970 continue in effect until amended or…”
McIlmurray v. Michigan Racing Comm'r, 343 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“I find it difficult to believe that the Legislature intended the result which follows from the majority's decision to read § 23 as having superseded pre-existing regulations. Under the majority's reading of the section, the use of all substances "other than food" which could…”
Webster v. Sec'y of State, 382 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“Subsection 2 of the amended section deleted the requirement that the hearing be held within 30 days of receipt of the request for a hearing: "(2) If a hearing is requested, the secretary of state shall hold the hearing in the same manner and under the same conditions as provided…”
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.