Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.281 (2026)

Proposals for decision; contents.

✓ 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

24.281 Proposals for decision; contents.

Sec. 81.

(1) When the official or a majority of the officials of the agency who are to make a final decision have not heard a contested case or read the record, the decision, if adverse to a party to the proceeding other than the agency itself, shall not be made until a proposal for decision is served on the parties, and an opportunity is given to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present written arguments to the officials who are to make the decision. Oral argument may be permitted with consent of the agency.

(2) The proposal for decision shall contain a statement of the reasons therefor and of each issue of fact and law necessary to the proposed decision, prepared by a person who conducted the hearing or who has read the record.

(3) The decision, without further proceedings, shall become the final decision of the agency in the absence of the filing of exceptions or review by action of the agency within the time provided by rule. On appeal from or review of a proposal of decision the agency, except as it may limit the issue upon notice or by rule, shall have all the powers which it would have if it had presided at the hearing.

(4) The parties, by written stipulation or at the hearing, may waive compliance with this section.

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 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Galuszka v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 693 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Galuszka v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 693 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 17× “This Court finds that Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when MCL 24.281 was not adhered to. Therefore, the order issued by ALJ Williams is the final agency decision in this case and Petitioner shall be granted benefits consistent with that proposal for decision.”

President Inn Props., LLC v. City of Grand Rapids, 806 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” MCL 24.281(2). Moreover, the APA permits, except as limited by statute or rule, review de novo by the agency — here the Tax Tribunal — of a proposed decision.”

Dignan v. Michigan Pub. Sch. Employees Ret. Bd., 659 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “MCL 24.281(2). The proposal becomes the “final decision of the agency” only if exceptions are not filed or there is no other review or action by the agency.”

Payne v. Muskegon, 514 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “" MCL 24.281(2); MSA 3.560(181)(2). When a commission enters such findings, a court must review those findings.”

Ford Motor Co. v. Bruce Twp., 689 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “281(1), an agency such as the tribunal, before issuing a final ruling without a hearing or review of the record, must submit a proposed opinion to the parties and allow adversely affected parties an opportunity to respond.”

Nolte v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 394 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “Petitioner asks for reconsideration of his case utilizing § 81 of the apa, MCL 24.281; MSA 3.560(181), which requires that the proposed decision be made available to the parties for comment.”

Thangavelu v. Dep't of Licensing & Reg., 386 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Therefore, we conclude that the record *557 adequately indicates that a majority of the members of the board read the administrative record as required by the statute, and no further proceedings were required under MCL 24.281; MSA 3.560(181). Last, petitioner claims that…”

Michigan's Adventure, Inc. v. Dalton Twp., 802 N.W.2d 353 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “MCL 24.281(3). Thus, the final decision on the assessment is the date that triggers the timing for filing an appeal.”

Attorney Gen. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n 1, 355 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “After review of the record, this *56 court concludes that the Attorney General’s motion to extend the deadline was properly denied.”

Champion's Auto Ferry, Inc v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 588 N.W.2d 153 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “As indicated, evidentiary hearings in this case and initial findings of fact and conclusions of law were conducted or made by an independent hearing officer, not by the psc, which simply was called upon to review the hearing officer’s proposal for decision, MCL 24.281; MSA…”

In Re Michigan Cable Telecomm. Ass'n Complaint, 609 N.W.2d 854 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “MCL 24.281(3); MSA 3.560(181)(3). The PSC’s opinion and order addresses *694 the exceptions filed by various parties and does not shift the burden of proof to Ameritech Michigan.”

Lewis v. Bridgman Pub. Schs., 737 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “287, and involves a significant degree of similarity and overlap between provisions of the APA and teacher tenure act.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.281(1) — 10 cases

Ford Motor Co. v. Bruce Twp., 689 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “281(1), an agency such as the tribunal, before issuing a final ruling without a hearing or review of the record, must submit a proposed opinion to the parties and allow adversely affected parties an opportunity to respond.”

Thangavelu v. Dep't of Licensing & Reg., 386 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Therefore, we conclude that the record *557 adequately indicates that a majority of the members of the board read the administrative record as required by the statute, and no further proceedings were required under MCL 24.281; MSA 3.560(181). Last, petitioner claims that…”

Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. v. Comm'r of Ins., 491 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

DeHart v. State Bd. of Reg. in Podiatry, 293 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Detroit Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n No. 1, 680 N.W.2d 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.281(2) — 5 cases

Payne v. Muskegon, 514 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 1994). “" MCL 24.281(2); MSA 3.560(181)(2). When a commission enters such findings, a court must review those findings.”

Galuszka v. State Employees' Ret. Sys., 693 N.W.2d 403 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “This Court finds that Petitioner’s due process rights were violated when MCL 24.281 was not adhered to. Therefore, the order issued by ALJ Williams is the final agency decision in this case and Petitioner shall be granted benefits consistent with that proposal for decision.”

President Inn Props., LLC v. City of Grand Rapids, 806 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 24.281(2). Moreover, the APA permits, except as limited by statute or rule, review de novo by the agency — here the Tax Tribunal — of a proposed decision.”

Dignan v. Michigan Pub. Sch. Employees Ret. Bd., 659 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 24.281(2). The proposal becomes the “final decision of the agency” only if exceptions are not filed or there is no other review or action by the agency.”

E R Drugs v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.281(3) — 9 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.