Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.27 (2026)

Arrangement of statistics of public institutions in reports; contents.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

LAWS, DOCUMENTS, AND REPORTS

Act 44 of 1899

24.27 Arrangement of statistics of public institutions in reports; contents.

Sec. 27.

In all reports the statistics of educational, charitable, reformatory and penal institutions shall be arranged in such a way as to show the cost of conducting each of said institutions during the 2 fiscal years preceding, salary of officers, the amount of legislative appropriation, receipts from all other sources, and all expenditures, and for what purposes. The said statistics shall also show the number of students, inmates or prisoners, according to the nature of each institution, and the instruction or employment given.

History: 1899, Act 44, Imd. Eff. Apr. 18, 1899 ;-- CL 1915, 845 ;-- CL 1929, 511 ;-- CL 1948, 24.27 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 161, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2008 · leading case: Klapp v. United Ins. Grp. Agency, Inc, 663 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Klapp v. United Ins. Grp. Agency, Inc, 663 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “” For example, 5 Corbin, Contracts (Rev ed, 1998), § 24.27, pp 297-300, provides: The “contra proferentem” rule has been described as being applicable only as a last resort, when other techniques of interpretation and construction have not resolved the question of which of two…”

Mayor of Lansing v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 680 N.W.2d 840 (Mich. 2004). “A finding of ambiguity, of course, enables an appellate judge to bypass traditional approaches to interpretation and either substitute presumptive “ ‘rule[s] of policy,’ ” see Klapp v United Ins, 468 Mich 459, 474 ; 663 NW2d 447 *165 (2003), quoting 5 Corbin, Contracts (rev ed,…”

Stone v. Williamson, 753 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. 2008). “noteworthy that this Court has repeatedly made it clear that “ambiguity is a finding of last resort,” because a finding of ambiguity enables an appellate judge to bypass traditional approaches to interpretation and either substitute presumptive “ ‘rule[s] of policy,’ ” see Klapp…”

Craig a Klapp v. United Insur Grp. Agency Inc (Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “” For example, 5 Corbin, Contracts (Rev ed, 1998), § 24.27, pp 297-300, provides: The “contra proferentem” rule has been described as being applicable only as a last resort, when other techniques of interpretation and construction have not resolved the question of which of two…”

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.