Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.272 (2026)
Defaults, written answers, evidence, argument, cross-examination.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
Act 306 of 1969
24.272 Defaults, written answers, evidence, argument, cross-examination.
Sec. 72.
(1) If a party fails to appear in a contested case after proper service of notice, the agency, if no adjournment is granted, may proceed with the hearing and make its decision in the absence of the party.
(2) A party who has been served with a notice of hearing may file a written answer before the date set for hearing.
(3) The parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and argument on issues of fact.
(4) A party may cross-examine a witness, including the author of a document prepared by, on behalf of, or for use of the agency and offered in evidence. A party may submit rebuttal evidence.
History: 1969, Act 306, Eff. July 1, 1970
PopularName Notes:
Act 306PopularName Notes:
APANotes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 491 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 491 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “Petitioner also argues that under MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3) it was entitled to both an evidentiary hearing and discovery despite the rules for summary decision.”
English v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 688 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “The insurer asserted that a specific statute, MCL 24.272(3), required an evidentiary hearing.”
Lawrence v. Dep't of Corr., 276 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “The APA’s provision for cross-examination of witnesses in a contested case, MCL 24.272; MSA 3.560(172), for example, has no counterpart in the list of rights of inmates at disciplinary hearings.”
Great Lakes Steel Div. of Nat'l Steel Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 330 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 1982). “MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3). While such a requirement would be ideal, it would convert the motion-predicated interim rate relief request into a full-blown petition proceeding which would be procedurally indistinguishable from the permanent rate request procedures which § 6a…”
Henderson v. Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist., 226 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “109 with MCLA 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172X1), of the Administrative Procedures Act which in no uncertain terms informs a party that failure to appear after proper service of notice means that the agency may proceed with the hearing and decide the case in the absence of the…”
Georgetown Place Coop. v. City of Taylor, 572 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “MCL 24.272(3), (4); MSA 3.560(172)(3), (4).”
Ionia Pub. Schs. v. Ionia Educ. Ass'n, 875 N.W.2d 756 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Pertinent to the issue of oral argument, the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act provides that, in a contested case, “[t]he parties shall be given an opportunity to present oral and written arguments on issues of law and policy and an opportunity to present evidence and…”
Atkins v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 284 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “As authority for this action the administrative law judge cited § 72(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172). During the subsequent hearing numerous witnesses testified about the circumstances surrounding plaintiffs’ current reapplication for a…”
Abate v. Psc, 420 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. 1988). “" MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3). While such a requirement would be ideal, it would convert the motion-predicated interim rate relief request into a full-blown petition proceeding which would be procedurally indistinguishable from the permanent rate request procedures which §…”
Rochester Cmty. Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ., 305 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3). In addition, it provides for the rights to cross-examine witnesses and to submit rebuttal evidence.”
Ass'n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 430 Mich. 33 (Mich. 1988). “” MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3). While such a requirement would be ideal, it would convert the motion-predicated interim rate relief request into a full-blown petition proceeding which would be procedurally indistinguishable from the permanent rate request procedures which §…”
Nylund v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 288 N.W.2d 660 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “560(191X1), MCL 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172)(1). We find that plaintiffs’ rights to due process protection were observed in the development of the 1974 rules and in the amendment of their individual licenses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.272(1) — 3 cases
Atkins v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 284 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “As authority for this action the administrative law judge cited § 72(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172). During the subsequent hearing numerous witnesses testified about the circumstances surrounding plaintiffs’ current reapplication for a…”
Henderson v. Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist., 226 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “109 with MCLA 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172X1), of the Administrative Procedures Act which in no uncertain terms informs a party that failure to appear after proper service of notice means that the agency may proceed with the hearing and decide the case in the absence of the…”
Nylund v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 288 N.W.2d 660 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “560(191X1), MCL 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172)(1). We find that plaintiffs’ rights to due process protection were observed in the development of the 1974 rules and in the amendment of their individual licenses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.272(2) — 1 case
Henderson v. Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist., 226 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “109 with MCLA 24.272(1); MSA 3.560(172X1), of the Administrative Procedures Act which in no uncertain terms informs a party that failure to appear after proper service of notice means that the agency may proceed with the hearing and decide the case in the absence of the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.272(3) — 11 cases
Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 491 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “Petitioner also argues that under MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3) it was entitled to both an evidentiary hearing and discovery despite the rules for summary decision.”
English v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 688 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “The insurer asserted that a specific statute, MCL 24.272(3), required an evidentiary hearing.”
Great Lakes Steel Div. of Nat'l Steel Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 330 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 1982). “MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3). While such a requirement would be ideal, it would convert the motion-predicated interim rate relief request into a full-blown petition proceeding which would be procedurally indistinguishable from the permanent rate request procedures which § 6a…”
Georgetown Place Coop. v. City of Taylor, 572 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “MCL 24.272(3), (4); MSA 3.560(172)(3), (4).”
Lawrence v. Dep't of Corr., 276 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “The APA’s provision for cross-examination of witnesses in a contested case, MCL 24.272; MSA 3.560(172), for example, has no counterpart in the list of rights of inmates at disciplinary hearings.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.272(4) — 2 cases
Rochester Cmty. Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. State Bd. of Educ., 305 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 24.272(3); MSA 3.560(172)(3). In addition, it provides for the rights to cross-examine witnesses and to submit rebuttal evidence.”
Zachary Newmeyer v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
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.