Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.4 (2026)
Bidder's deposit; forfeiture.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Act 385 of 1927
26.4 Bidder's deposit; forfeiture.
Sec. 4.
Each bidder shall deposit with the state treasurer before making his proposal a certified check for the sum of 1,000 dollars which is to be forfeited to the state in case he shall fail to enter into a contract in accordance with this act if said board shall declare him to be the successful bidder, and he shall take a receipt from said treasurer and deposit it with his proposal.
History: 1927, Act 385, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 526 ;-- CL 1948, 26.4
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “See also LaFave, et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007. -6- The Apprendi Court also took care to note the historical difference in its jurisprudence “between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation.”
In RE PEOPLE v. Burton, 413 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. 1987). “3 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure, § 26.4, pp 238-239. As the authors of one leading treatise reason: *147 "In limiting the government's right to appeal, Congress has made it clear that the government cannot complain of ordinary trial errors.”
Payne v. Muskegon, 514 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 1994). “"A jurisdiction may ordinarily treat the writs as flexible devices allowing review of a wide range of nonappealable orders, but sharply restrict that flexibility in the context of criminal cases.”
Midwest Guar. Bank v. Guar. Bank, 270 F. Supp. 2d 900 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “4 McCarthy on Trademarks § 26.4, at 26-9-10. Laurel Capital Group v.”
Covill v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 789 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 26.4 (1983). Further, if plaintiff were merely challenging the facial constitutionality of a federal statute that granted an administrative agency regulatory or adjudicatory authority, this might be an appropriate case for immediate judicial review, Weinberger v.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Taylor (Mich. 2022). “[6 LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007.] Because placing the burden of proving mitigating factors beyond a preponderance of the evidence in capital cases on the defendant has been found not to violate due process, “due process would permit legislatures…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Taylor (Mich. 2022). “[6 LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007.] Because placing the burden of proving mitigating factors beyond a preponderance of the evidence in capital cases on the defendant has been found not to violate due process, “due process would permit legislatures…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Taylor (Mich. 2022). “[6 LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007.] Because placing the burden of proving mitigating factors beyond a preponderance of the evidence in capital cases on the defendant has been found not to violate due process, “due process would permit legislatures…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.4(c) — 1 case
Payne v. Muskegon, 514 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. 1994). “"A jurisdiction may ordinarily treat the writs as flexible devices allowing review of a wide range of nonappealable orders, but sharply restrict that flexibility in the context of criminal cases.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.4(h) — 4 cases
People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “See also LaFave, et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007. -6- The Apprendi Court also took care to note the historical difference in its jurisprudence “between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation.”
People of Michigan v. Robert Taylor (Mich. 2022). “[6 LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007.] Because placing the burden of proving mitigating factors beyond a preponderance of the evidence in capital cases on the defendant has been found not to violate due process, “due process would permit legislatures…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Taylor (Mich. 2022). “[6 LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007.] Because placing the burden of proving mitigating factors beyond a preponderance of the evidence in capital cases on the defendant has been found not to violate due process, “due process would permit legislatures…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Taylor (Mich. 2022). “[6 LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007.] Because placing the burden of proving mitigating factors beyond a preponderance of the evidence in capital cases on the defendant has been found not to violate due process, “due process would permit legislatures…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.4(i) — 1 case
People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “See also LaFave, et al, Criminal Procedure (4th ed), § 26.4(h), p 1007. -6- The Apprendi Court also took care to note the historical difference in its jurisprudence “between facts in aggravation of punishment and facts in mitigation.”
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.