HIGHWAY ADVERTISING ACT OF 1972
Act 106 of 1972
252.323 Rules; hearings; review.
Sec. 23.
(1) The department may promulgate and enforce rules to implement this act in accordance with and subject to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.315 of the Compiled Laws of 1948.
(2) If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, he may request a formal hearing on the matter involved. The hearing shall be conducted by the department in accordance with the provisions for contested cases in Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended.
(3) A determination, action or inaction by the department following the hearing shall be subject to judicial review as provided in Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended.
History: 1972, Act 106, Imd. Eff. Mar. 31, 1972
AdminRule Notes:
R 247.701 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cent. Advert. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 413 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“The haa, MCL 252.323(3); MSA 9.391(123)(3), states that a decision under the act is subject to judicial review as provided in 1969 PA 306 , MCL 24.”
Outfront Media LLC v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 252.323(3); MCL 24.306(1). Notably, the APA does not allow a -3- circuit “court to set aside an administrative decision it finds inequitable.”
Outfront Media LLC v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 252.323(3); MCL 24.306(1). Notably, the APA does not allow a -3- circuit “court to set aside an administrative decision it finds inequitable.”
Wolverine Sign Works v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“MCL 252.323(3); MCL 24.306(1). A final agency decision must generally be upheld by the reviewing court “if it is not contrary to law, is not arbitrary, capricious, or a clear abuse of discretion, and is supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 252.323(3) — 4 cases
Cent. Advert. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 413 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“The haa, MCL 252.323(3); MSA 9.391(123)(3), states that a decision under the act is subject to judicial review as provided in 1969 PA 306 , MCL 24.”
Outfront Media LLC v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 252.323(3); MCL 24.306(1). Notably, the APA does not allow a -3- circuit “court to set aside an administrative decision it finds inequitable.”
Outfront Media LLC v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 252.323(3); MCL 24.306(1). Notably, the APA does not allow a -3- circuit “court to set aside an administrative decision it finds inequitable.”
Wolverine Sign Works v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“MCL 252.323(3); MCL 24.306(1). A final agency decision must generally be upheld by the reviewing court “if it is not contrary to law, is not arbitrary, capricious, or a clear abuse of discretion, and is supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole…”
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.