ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1969
Act 306 of 1969
24.282 Communications by agency staff; limitations; exceptions.
Sec. 82.
Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a member or employee of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a contested case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact, with any person or party, nor, in connection with any issue of law, with any party or his representative, except on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This prohibition begins at the time of the notice of hearing. An agency member may communicate with other members of the agency and may have the aid and advice of the agency staff other than the staff which has been or is engaged in investigating or prosecuting functions in connection with the case under consideration or a factually related case. This section does not apply to an agency employee, or party representative with professional training in accounting, actuarial science, economics, financial analysis or rate-making, in a contested case before the financial institutions bureau, the insurance bureau or the public service commission insofar as the case involves rate-making or financial practices or conditions.
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
Maxwell v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 692 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “282, which provides: Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a member or employee of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and *575 conclusions of law in a contested case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly,…”
Dep't of Pub. Health v. Rivergate Manor, 550 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. 1996).
· cites it 2× “" [15] Section 82 provides: Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a member or employee of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a contested case shall not communicate, directly or…”
Auto. Serv. Councils v. Sec'y of State, 267 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “560(182), provides in pertinent part: "Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a member or employee of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a contested case shall not communicate, directly or…”
Hanselman v. Wayne Cnty. Concealed Weapon Licensing Bd., 351 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1984).
“The plaintiff claimed this to be in violation of MCL 24.282; MSA 3.560(182) which states: "Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a member or employee of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in…”
Russo v. Dep't of Licensing & Reg., 326 N.W.2d 583 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
“” The APA, §82, MCL 24.282; MSA 3.560(182), also provides protection against an agency’s com *630 mingling of investigative and adjudicative functions.”
In re 1987-88 Med. Doctor Provider Class Plan, 514 N.W.2d 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“We do note, however, that the iho’s reliance on MCL 24.282; MSA 3.560(182) in finding fault with the ic’s contacts with bcbsm was clear error, because the statute applies to contested case proceedings.”
Hanselman v. Killeen, 316 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 6× “" MCL 24.282; MSA 3.560(182). Plaintiff's hearing before the licensing board convened on September 21, 1979.”
Kassab v. Acho, 336 N.W.2d 816 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“” MCL 24.282; MSA 3.560(182). Thus, when the commission received Chief Hart’s letters, which addressed the major factual issue, the Kassabs, as parties to this contested case, were entitled to notice of those letters and an opportunity to respond to them.”
Maxwell v. DEQ, 692 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “282, which provides: Unless required for disposition of an ex parte matter authorized by law, a member or employee of an agency assigned to make a decision or to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in a contested case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in…”
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.