Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 259.460 (2026)

Appeals; petitions for review by circuit court.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

AIRPORT ZONING ACT

Act 23 of 1950 (Ex. Sess.)

259.460 Appeals; petitions for review by circuit court.

Sec. 30.

Any person, including the commission, on behalf of and in the name of the state, aggrieved by any decision of a board of appeals, or any governing body of a political subdivision or any joint airport zoning board who is of the opinion that a decision of a board of appeals is erroneous, after first exhausting the remedies provided by such board, may present to the circuit court in any county in which the board transacts its business, a verified petition setting forth that the decision is erroneous, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the error. Such petition shall be presented to the court within 30 days after the decision is filed in the office of the board. When petitions for review are filed in qualified courts located in different counties, the court in which a petition is filed first shall have exclusive jurisdiction of the matter.

History: 1950, Ex. Sess., Act 23, Imd. Eff. June 7, 1950

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2022 · leading case: Pegasus Wind LLC v. Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pegasus Wind LLC v. Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “See MCL 259.460; MCR 7.122(A)(1); MCR 7.103(A)(3).”

Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd of Appeals v. Aeronautics Comm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “1 provides, “Any person, including the Michigan Aeronautics Commission on behalf of and in the name of the State, aggrieved by any decision of the Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Board of Appeals, may appeal to the Circuit Court of the County of Tuscola as provided in [MCL…”

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.