Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 24 / Act 306 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.275 (2026)

Evidence; admissibility, objections, submission in written form.

✓ 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


24.275 Evidence; admissibility, objections, submission in written form.

Sec. 75.

    In a contested case the rules of evidence as applied in a nonjury civil case in circuit court shall be followed as far as practicable, but an agency may admit and give probative effect to evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded. Effect shall be given to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to offers of evidence may be made and shall be noted in the record. Subject to these requirements, an agency, for the purpose of expediting hearings and when the interests of the parties will not be substantially prejudiced thereby, may provide in a contested case or by rule for submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.

History: 1969, Act 306, Eff. July 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 40, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1970

PopularName Notes:

Act 306

PopularName Notes:

APA
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 856 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 856 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “In contrast, MCL 24.275 sets forth several general rules for the admission of evidence in contested case proceedings in the administrative setting, including incorporation by reference of “the rules of evidence as applied in a nonjury civil case in circuit court,” and the…”
VanZandt v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 701 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MCL 24.275 permits the Board to “admit and give probative effect to evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.”
Rentz v. Gen. Motors Corp., 245 N.W.2d 705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “MCLA 24.275; MSA 3.560 (175). Should not then a reasonably prudent person feel safe in relying on and finding relevance in the description "enlarged heart" issued by a physician, particularly when the physician's supervisor-doctor is present to answer questions about the X-ray…”
Georgetown Place Coop. v. City of Taylor, 572 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “650(46)(1); MCL 24.275; MSA 3.560(175). In the instant case, because the amendments were of an appraisal that was probative of the true cash value of the property, and because petitioner was provided an opportunity to cross-examine Anderson and present arguments in a posthearing…”
Hagen v. Dep't of Educ., 427 N.W.2d 879 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “See MCL 24.275; MSA 3.560(175). In its broad sense, the word would embrace adversary, ex parte, or paper hearings.”
Faust Pub. Library v. Afscme Council 25, 875 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “275, provides in relevant part that “[i]n a contested case the rules of evidence as applied in a nonjury civil case in circuit court shall be followed as far as practicable, but an agency may admit and give probative effect to evidence of a type commonly relied upon by…”
Michigan Elec. Coop. Ass'n v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 705 N.W.2d 709 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “MCL 24.275. A final decision in a contested case must be in writing or stated in the record and must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Holland Home v. City of Grand Rapids, 557 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “This act [§ 75 of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.275; MSA 3.560(175)] has been held to apply to the “quasi-judicial” proceedings of the Michigan Tax Tribunal.”
Becker-Witt v. Bd. of Examiners of Soc. Workers, 663 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” MCL 24.275. Having reviewed petitioner’s prior testimony, we believe that there is ample evidentiary support for the referee’s finding that petitioner had reasonable cause to suspect that her client committed an act of abuse.”
Cona v. Avondale Sch. Dist., 37 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See MCL 24.275; MCL 38.104(4); see also Sutherby v Gobles Bd of Ed, 73 Mich App 506, 510 ; 252 NW2d 503 (1977).”
Vomvolakis v. Dep't of Treasury, 377 N.W.2d 309 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “” MCL 24.275; MSA 3.560(175). The Tax Tribunal Act states: "(1) In a proceeding before the tribunal all parties may submit evidence.”
Kassab v. Acho, 336 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “” MCL 24.275; MSA 3.560(175). The Kassabs contend that Chief Hart’s letters were not competent evidence pursuant to § 75.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.