ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
Act 306 of 1969
24.263 Declaratory ruling by agency as to applicability of rule.
Sec. 63.
On request of an interested person, an agency may issue a declaratory ruling as to the applicability to an actual state of facts of a statute administered by the agency or of a rule or order of the agency. An agency shall prescribe by rule the form for such a request and procedure for its submission, consideration and disposition. A declaratory ruling is binding on the agency and the person requesting it unless it is altered or set aside by any court. An agency may not retroactively change a declaratory ruling, but nothing in this subsection prevents an agency from prospectively changing a declaratory ruling. A declaratory ruling is subject to judicial review in the same manner as an agency final decision or order in a contested case.
History: 1969, Act 306, Eff. July 1, 1970
AdminRule Notes:
R 32.11 et seq.; R 38.131 et seq.; R 299.5001 et seq.; R 323.1001 et seq.; R 324.1 et seq.; R 325.1211; R 325.10101 et seq.; R 338.81; R 340.1351 et seq.; R 400.1 et seq.; R 408.20001 et seq.; and R 436.1971 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.
PopularName Notes:
Act 306
PopularName Notes:
APA
Notes of Decisions
Greenfield Constr. Co. v. Dep't of State Highways, 261 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. 1978).
· cites it 10× “*187 On September 11, 1973, after a hearing, the circuit court issued an opinion holding that the 1970 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction contract provisions in dispute were not "rules" subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act, MCLA 24.263; MSA…”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 807 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 8× “The DEQ pointed out that, prior to filing the present declaratory judgment action in circuit court, plaintiffs had formally requested from the DEQ a declaratory ruling pursuant to § 63 of the APA, MCL 24.263. Specifically, plaintiffs had requested “a ruling declaring *118 that.”
Human Rights Party v. Michigan Corr. Comm'n, 256 N.W.2d 439 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 8× “Rather, the form of plaintiffs request to defendants and the language of its complaint appear to be from MCLA 24.263; MSA 3.560(163), which provides as follows: "On request of an interested person, an agency may issue a declaratory ruling as to the applicability to an actual…”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 761 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “215(1)(e), and under the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.263, the Secretary of State may issue "a declaratory ruling as to the applicability to an actual state of facts of a statute.”
Greenbriar Convalescent Ctr., Inc v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 310 N.W.2d 812 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 8× “The judge agreed, holding that the department was estopped from reversing its determination of exemption and holding that the determination of exemption was a declaratory ruling, MCL 24.263; MSA 3.560(163). The judge held that the change in the determination was an improper…”
Huron Valley Schs. v. Sec'y of State, 702 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “MCL 24.263 .... Plaintiff could have requested a declaratory ruling regarding § 57, and, if the Secretary of State refused to issue such a ruling, plaintiff could have sought a declaratory judgment in the circuit court.”
Michigan Chamber of Com. v. Land, 725 F. Supp. 2d 665 (W.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 4× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.263 . Namely, the plaintiffs had sixty calendar days to notice an appeal from the Secretary’s interpretive ruling, first to the circuit court and then, if necessary, to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court.”
Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Sec'y of State, 583 N.W.2d 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “§ 24.263; M.S.A. § 3.560(163) establishes that declaratory rulings are binding only on the parties requesting them and the agencies issuing them.”
Citizens for Common Sense in Gov't v. Attorney Gen., 620 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “MCL 24.263; MSA 3.560(163). Plaintiff could have requested a declaratory ruling regarding § 57, and, if the Secretary of State refused to issue such a ruling, plaintiff could have sought a declaratory judgment in the circuit court.”
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.