Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 28 / Act 378 of 2004
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 28.582 (2026)

Definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC BODY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ACT


Act 378 of 2004


28.582 Definitions.

Sec. 2.

    As used in this act:

    (a) "Governing entity" means either of the following, as applicable:

    (i) For any public body except a public body described in subparagraph (ii), the governing board of the public body.

    (ii) In the case of a public body that is a qualifying school district under part 5a of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.371 to 380.376, the chief executive officer of the school district, subject to the concurrence of the school reform board of the school district.

    (b) "Public body" means either of the following, within this state:

    (i) A multicounty metropolitan district authorized and established pursuant to state law by 2 or more counties with a combined population of not less than 3,000,000, for the purpose of cooperative planning, promoting, acquiring, constructing, owning, developing, maintaining, or operating parks.

    (ii) A school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.

History: 2004, Act 378, Imd. Eff. Oct. 12, 2004

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1948–1971 · leading case: People v. Nelson, 33 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1948).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Nelson, 33 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1948). · cites it 5× “§ 28.582). Prom the judgment imposing-sentence, defendant appeals.”
People v. Haggitt, 189 N.W.2d 842 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “350 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.582). [6] Practical experience of trial judges in Michigan has established the utility, as a sentencing technique, of long shock-effect sentences in selectively appropriate cases, coupled with efforts to motivate the offender to work toward such an…”
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.