Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 285 / Act 141 of 1939
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 285.67a (2026)

Repealed. 2002, Act 80, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003.

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

GRAIN DEALERS ACT


Act 141 of 1939


285.67a Repealed. 2002, Act 80, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003.

    Repealed. 2002, Act 80, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to application requirements for grain dealer's license.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1989–2002 · leading case: Dan De Farms, Inc v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc, 625 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dan De Farms, Inc v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc, 625 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff sued, seeking to recover $250,000 from a $50,000 bond acquired by Sterling and issued by Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company pursuant to § 7a of the Grain Dealers Act, MCL 285.67a; MSA 12.119(7.1). The Department of Agriculture was made a party to the action…”
La Bair v. Mayville Feed & Grain, Inc. (In Re Mayville Feed & Grain, Inc.), 96 B.R. 755 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1989). · cites it 8× “Both Michigan Millers and the Department interpret the Act, particularly Mich.Comp.Laws § 285.67a, as making the bond liable when available funds prove inadequate to fully' pay only warehouse receipt holders.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 248 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse receipt transactions for bailed grain.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 640 N.W.2d 583 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse receipt transactions for bailed grain.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. 2001). “§ 285.67a(1). If it is unambiguous, then the Court is to apply the statute as written.”
Dan De Farms v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 648 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2002). “§ 285.67a(1) was ambiguous. However, nowhere in its opinion on remand has the Court of Appeals identified the specific language of the statute which is allegedly ambiguous or explained how or why that language is ambiguous.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 656 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “We then stated that we found MCL 285.67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse *205 receipt transactions for…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 285.67a(1) — 4 cases
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. 2001). “§ 285.67a(1). If it is unambiguous, then the Court is to apply the statute as written.”
Dan De Farms v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 648 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2002). “§ 285.67a(1) was ambiguous. However, nowhere in its opinion on remand has the Court of Appeals identified the specific language of the statute which is allegedly ambiguous or explained how or why that language is ambiguous.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 640 N.W.2d 583 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse receipt transactions for bailed grain.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 656 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “We then stated that we found MCL 285.67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse *205 receipt transactions for…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 285.67a(l) — 4 cases
La Bair v. Mayville Feed & Grain, Inc. (In Re Mayville Feed & Grain, Inc.), 96 B.R. 755 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1989). “Both Michigan Millers and the Department interpret the Act, particularly Mich.Comp.Laws § 285.67a, as making the bond liable when available funds prove inadequate to fully' pay only warehouse receipt holders.”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 248 Mich. App. 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse receipt transactions for bailed grain.”
Dan De Farms, Inc v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc, 625 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Plaintiff sued, seeking to recover $250,000 from a $50,000 bond acquired by Sterling and issued by Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company pursuant to § 7a of the Grain Dealers Act, MCL 285.67a; MSA 12.119(7.1). The Department of Agriculture was made a party to the action…”
Dan De Farms, Inc. v. Sterling Farm Supply, Inc., 656 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “We then stated that we found MCL 285.67a, as it existed at the times relevant to this case, to be ambiguous with regard to whether the bonding requirements of that statute apply to all grain dealers for all transactions or is limited to warehouse *205 receipt transactions for…”
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.