Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 26 / Act 385 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.6 (2026)

Contract; contents, copyright; noncompliance with act or contract; delivery of electrotyped plates; work done in state.

✓ 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


26.6 Contract; contents, copyright; noncompliance with act or contract; delivery of electrotyped plates; work done in state.

Sec. 6.

    The contract of the successful bidder shall contain, among others, the following covenants:

    1. That he shall take out no copyright except to the secretary of state for the use and disposal of the state, upon any volume published under such contract.

    2. That if it shall, on petition by any citizen of Michigan, be made to appear to the justices of the supreme court that such contractor has in any respect failed to comply with the provisions of this act or his contract, said justices may, upon hearing had in such manner as they may direct, declare the contract forfeited, and on such forfeiture being declared, such contractor shall upon demand of said board transfer to the secretary of state of this state for the use of the state, all the electrotype plates of all volumes published under such contract, or in default thereof will pay to the treasurer of this state $1,000.00 for each such volume as liquidated damages for failure to make such transfer.

    3. That he will, as often and as soon as any and every volume is ready for binding, deliver to the secretary of state at Lansing, free of all charge whatsoever, a set of electrotyped plates thereof in good order for printing, or in default thereof he shall pay to the treasurer of this state the like sum of $1,000.00 as liquidated damages for failure to deliver the same. Moneys received under this section shall be used as far as necessary to procure electrotyped plates of such published reports, to be paid for by said treasurer on the draft of the board of state auditors approved by the secretary of state, who shall certify that such plates have been deposited with him.

    4. That the board of state auditors may require that the contractor have all of the composition, plating, presswork and folding and substantially all of the binding done within this state.

History: 1927, Act 385, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 528 ;-- Am. 1943, Act 226, Eff. July 30, 1943 ;-- CL 1948, 26.6

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: People v. Mateo, 551 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Mateo, 551 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 8× “We have since recognized, in accord with the precedent of all sister states and federal courts, LaFave & Israel, § 26.6, p. 258, that the statute and rules are merely "different *896 articulations of the same idea: appellate courts should not reverse a conviction unless the…”
People v. Grant, 520 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “" Clearly, the procedural rule provides a stronger semantic basis for the decision reached by the majority.”
Covill v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 789 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “See generally, 4 Davis, supra, § 26.6. In this case however, the administrative tribunal has not yet rendered a determination to which the plaintiff objects as beyond its proper authority.”
People of Michigan v. Diane Melody Dieter (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “See also LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (3d ed), § 26.6(c), n 42 (collecting cases). -9-”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.6(a) — 1 case
People v. Mateo, 551 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. 1996). “We have since recognized, in accord with the precedent of all sister states and federal courts, LaFave & Israel, § 26.6, p. 258, that the statute and rules are merely "different *896 articulations of the same idea: appellate courts should not reverse a conviction unless the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.6(b) — 1 case
People v. Mateo, 551 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. 1996). “We have since recognized, in accord with the precedent of all sister states and federal courts, LaFave & Israel, § 26.6, p. 258, that the statute and rules are merely "different *896 articulations of the same idea: appellate courts should not reverse a conviction unless the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 26.6(c) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Diane Melody Dieter (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “See also LaFave et al, Criminal Procedure (3d ed), § 26.6(c), n 42 (collecting cases). -9-”
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.