ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
Act 306 of 1969
24.280 Presiding officer; powers and duties; “nonmeeting day” defined.
Sec. 80.
(1) A presiding officer may do all of the following:
(a) Administer oaths and affirmations.
(b) Sign and issue subpoenas in the name of the agency, requiring attendance and giving of testimony by witnesses and the production of books, papers, and other documentary evidence.
(c) Provide for the taking of testimony by deposition.
(d) Regulate the course of the hearings, set the time and place for continued hearings, and fix the time for filing of briefs and other documents.
(e) Direct the parties to appear and confer to consider simplification of the issues by consent of the parties.
(f) Act upon an application for an award of costs and fees under sections 121 to 127.
(2) In order to assure adequate representation for the people of this state, when the presiding officer knows that a party in a contested case is a member of the legislature of this state, and the legislature is in session, the contested case shall be continued by the presiding officer to a nonmeeting day.
(3) In order to assure adequate representation for the people of this state, when the presiding officer knows that a party to a contested case is a member of the legislature of this state who serves on a legislative committee, subcommittee, commission, or council that is scheduled to meet during the legislative session while the legislature is temporarily adjourned, or that is scheduled to meet during the interim between legislative sessions after the legislature has adjourned sine die, or when the partisan caucus of which the legislator is a member is scheduled to meet, the contested case shall be continued to a nonmeeting day.
(4) In order to assure adequate representation for the people of this state, when the presiding officer knows that a witness in a contested case is a member of the legislature of this state, and the legislature is in session, or the member is serving on a legislative committee, subcommittee, commission, or council that is scheduled to meet during the legislative session while the legislature is temporarily adjourned or during the interim between legislative sessions after the legislature has adjourned sine die, or when the partisan caucus of which the legislator is a member is scheduled to meet the contested case need not be continued, but the taking of the legislator's testimony, as a witness shall be postponed to the earliest practicable nonmeeting day.
(5) The presiding officer shall notify all parties to the contested case, and their attorneys, of any continuance granted pursuant to this section.
(6) As used in this section, "nonmeeting day" means a day on which there is not a scheduled meeting of the house of which the party or witness is a member, nor a legislative committee meeting or public hearing scheduled by a committee, subcommittee, commission, or council of which he or she is a member, nor a scheduled partisan caucus of the members of the house of which he or she is a member.
History: 1969, Act 306, Eff. July 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 40, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 28, Imd. Eff. Mar. 12, 1984 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 196, Imd. Eff. July 3, 1984
PopularName Notes:
Act 306
PopularName Notes:
APA
Notes of Decisions
Dignan v. Michigan Pub. Sch. Employees Ret. Bd., 659 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“The powers of a presiding officer are provided in MCL 24.280. A presiding officer is required to prepare a written “proposal for decision” containing reasons and findings necessary to the proposed decision.”
Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 363 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 2× “" MCL 24.280(d); MSA 3.560(180)(d). The law does not limit the chairperson's power to regulate the course of the hearings only prior to the closing of the record.”
Ansell v. Dep't of Com. (On Remand), 564 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“Nonetheless, petitioner could have *362 preserved his father’s testimony under MCL 24.280(1)(b) and (c); MSA 3.560(180)(1)(b) and (c).”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Cusick, 120 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1963).
“17 (Stat Ann 1943 Rev § 24.280) provided: “The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered by this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false statement was made with actual intent to deceive or unless it materially affected…”
Turner v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 24 N.W.2d 534 (Mich. 1946).
“§ 24.280), become material. Said section reads: “The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered by this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false' statement was made with actual intent to deceive or unless it materially…”
New York Life Ins. v. Newman, 18 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. 1945).
“§ 24.280), provides: *374 “The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered by this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false statement was made with actual intent to deceive or unless it materially affected either the…”
In re 1987-88 Med. Doctor Provider Class Plan, 514 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“Appellees’ reliance on MCL 24.280(1)(f); MSA 3.560(180)(1)(f), part of Chapter 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act, is misplaced because that statute authorizes attorney fees against agencies and only if the agency took a frivolous position.”
Bendford v. Nat'l Life & Accident Ins., 96 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. 1959).
“17 (Stat Ann 1943 Rev § 24.280), applicable hereto, provided: “The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered by this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false statement was made with actual intent to deceive or unless it…”
Polish Roman Catholic Union v. Palen, 5 N.W.2d 463 (Mich. 1942).
“§ 24.280]) governing the issuance of life insurance policies provides: “The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered by this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false statement was made with actual intent to deceive or…”
Mut. Benefit Life Ins. v. Abbott, 157 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
“17 (Stat Ann 1943 Rev § 24.280), was in effect. Prior to its repeal hy PA 1956, No 218, effective January 1, 1957, that section provided: “The falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered hy this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless…”
Thelen v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 7 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. 1942).
“We are not here considering a situation where the insurer filed a bill in chancery to cancel a policy on the ground of misrepresentations in the application.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.280(1)(b): 1 case
Ansell v. Dep't of Com. (On Remand), 564 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“Nonetheless, petitioner could have *362 preserved his father’s testimony under MCL 24.280(1)(b) and (c); MSA 3.560(180)(1)(b) and (c).”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.280(1)(f): 1 case
In re 1987-88 Med. Doctor Provider Class Plan, 514 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“Appellees’ reliance on MCL 24.280(1)(f); MSA 3.560(180)(1)(f), part of Chapter 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act, is misplaced because that statute authorizes attorney fees against agencies and only if the agency took a frivolous position.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.280(d): 1 case
Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 363 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. 1985).
“" MCL 24.280(d); MSA 3.560(180)(d). The law does not limit the chairperson's power to regulate the course of the hearings only prior to the closing of the record.”
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.