Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 280 / Act 40 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 280.1 (2026)

Drain code of 1956; short title.

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

THE DRAIN CODE OF 1956


Act 40 of 1956


280.1 Drain code of 1956; short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as "the drain code of 1956".

History: 1956, Act 40, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 1956

TransferOfPowers Notes:

    See MCL 299.11.

PopularName Notes:

Act 40
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 4× “The Drain Code, MCL 280.1 et seq.; MSA 11.1001 et seq., does not incorrectly use the term "special assessment".”
Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp., 829 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “We hold that the circuit court was the correct forum to hear Ashley’s challenge as the special assessment arose under the Drain Code, MCL 280.1 et seq., and was therefore outside the MTT’s exclusive and original jurisdiction.”
Wiggins v. City of Burton, 805 N.W.2d 517 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” The Wiggins also asserted that the City had improperly failed to comply with the Drain Code, MCL 280.1 et seq., when it undertook to construct the drain at issue in this case.”
Elba Twp. v. Gratiot Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 831 N.W.2d 204 (Mich. 2013). “In light of the importance of these functions, those governmental officials charged at various stages of our state’s history with overseeing the construction and maintenance of drains have been accorded fairly sweeping powers subject only to limited judicial review.”
Hillsdale Cnty. Senior Servs., Inc v. Hillsdale Cnty., 494 Mich. 46 (Mich. 2013). “10 This issue was apparently rendered moot when the Drain Code, MCL 280.1 et seg., was amended. Romulus, 413 Mich at 733 n 2.”
In Re Proj. Cost & Special Assessment Roll for Chappel Dam, 762 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Specifically, petitioners’ argument is that the circuit court erred by not applying the statutory review procedures set forth in the Drain Code, MCL 280.1 et seq., and misapplied the court rules by not allowing 14 days for petitioners to respond to respondents’ motion to affirm.”
In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist., 818 N.W.2d 478 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant undertook to make improvements to the Waters Drain and apportioned the cost of such improvements to property owners located in the Waters Drain Special Assessment District in accordance with the *216 Drain Code, MCL 280.1 et seq. Plaintiffs…”
Ray v. Mason Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 224 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 2× “Proceedings were conducted under the Michigan Drain Code of 1956, MCLA 280.1 et seq.; MSA 11.1001 et seq. and on July 1, 1965 the Board of Determination of Necessity found that the proposed work plan was unnecessary.”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “38 The purpose of the Drain Code is to codify the laws relating to the laying out of drainage districts, the consolidation of drainage districts, the construction and maintenance of drains, sewers, pumping equipment, bridges, culverts, fords, and the structures and mechanical…”
Reist v. Bay Circuit Judge, 241 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1976). “40 of the Public Acts of 1956, as amended, being sections 280.1 to 280.624 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and adoption proceedings under chapter 10 of this act, as amended, shall be appealable directly to the court of appeals.”
Maple Grove Twp. v. Misteguay Creek Intercounty Drain Bd., 828 N.W.2d 459 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “The plaintiffs townships of Maple Grove, Hazelton, Venice, New Haven, and Caledonia appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition for defendant, Misteguay Creek Intercounty Drain Board (the Drain Board), in this action involving the Drain Code, MCL…”
Oakland Cnty. Comm'r v. Oakland Cnty. Exec., 296 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “The ability of the board of commissioners to vote in favor of a SEMTA withdrawal, or a public works/drain commissioner merger, does not conflict with the ultimate veto power of the county executive, nor with the board of commissioners' subsequent ability to override such vetoes.”
Show all 64 citing cases →
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.