Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.10 (2026)

Repealed. 2002, Act 324, Imd. Eff. May 23, 2002.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

MICHIGAN STATE POLICE

Act 59 of 1935

28.10 Repealed. 2002, Act 324, Imd. Eff. May 23, 2002.

Repealed. 2002, Act 324, Imd. Eff. May 23, 2002.

Compiler's Notes:

The repealed section pertained to members of department prohibited from taking part in political campaigns.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1969–2020 · leading case: Schwartz v. City of Flint, 395 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schwartz v. City of Flint, 395 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 3× “See 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (2d ed), § 28.10, pp 378-379, n 36; 3 Rathkopf & Rathkopf, Law of Zoning & Planning (4th ed), § 36.”

Sam v. Balardo, 308 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 2× “"1723908"> 463 SW2d 627, 629 (Ky, 1970); Briggs Drive, Inc v Moorehead, 103 RI 555; 239 A2d 186 (1968); Welch v Humphrey, 200 Md 410; 90 A2d 686 (1952); Town of Southington v Francis, 159 Conn 64; 266 A2d 387 (1970); and 1A Sands, Sutherlands' Statutory Construction (4th ed), §…”

Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of Kentwood, 277 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 2× “6 See 4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (2d ed), § 28.10, p 378. Other courts have similarly found that leaving property unzoned is *169 unacceptable.”

Kapalczynski v. Globe Constr. Co., 172 N.W.2d 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). “” 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 28.10, pp 1556, 1557. It was entirely understandable that the Benton Harbor Court eon-eluded that a loss caused by plaintiff’s own neglect should bar recover j, but here the defendants claim that the negligenee of another tortfeasor [the…”

Horstkoetter v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 159 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998). “170 (Michie 1996); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.10 (West 1997); Miss.”

Kingsbury Country Day Sch. v. Addison Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “] In this case, the Township’s variance ordinance sets forth the standards for approval for a variance as follows: Section 28.10 – Zoning variances. The board of appeals may upon appeal of a specific case authorize such variance from the terms of this ordinance as will not be…”

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.