Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 290.651 (2026)

Agricultural commodities marketing act; short title.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES MARKETING ACT

Act 232 of 1965

290.651 Agricultural commodities marketing act; short title.

Sec. 1.

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "agricultural commodities marketing act".

History: 1965, Act 232, Eff. Mar. 31, 1966

Constitutionality Notes:

The Michigan supreme court, in Dukesherer Farms, Inc v Director of the Department of Agriculture, 405 Mich 1; 273 NW2d 877 (1979), found the agricultural commodities marketing act and the Michigan cherry promotion and development program instituted pursuant to the act constitutional.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Dep't of Agric. v. Appletree Mktg., LLC, 779 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dep't of Agric. v. Appletree Mktg., LLC, 779 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “We granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal, directing the parties to address the following issues: (1) whether the plaintiffs may simultaneously pursue claims against Appletree Marketing, LLC for alleged violations of the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, MCL…”

Dukesherer Farms, Inc v. Dir. of the Dep't of Agric., 273 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 3× “, filed a class action on behalf of all cherry producers in the state of Michigan seeking a permanent injunction against further implementation of the Michigan Cherry Promotion and Development Program instituted pursuant to the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, MCL 290.651…”

Bray v. Dep't of State, 341 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 2× “Concluding that the special assessment was not an unconstitutional use of the taxing power, this Court, quoting a decision of the United States Supreme Court, said: "It is inaccurate and misleading to speak of the exaction from processors prescribed by the challenged act as a…”

League Gen. Ins. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'n, 458 N.W.2d 632 (Mich. 1990). “The Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, MCL 290.651 et seq.; MSA 12.94(21) et seq.”

Dukesherer Farms, Inc. v. Dir. of the Dep't of Agric., 251 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “This action originally began in 1972 *215 when plaintiff filed a class action seeking a permanent injunction against actions by the defendants in carrying out the Michigan Cherry Promotion and Development Program (hereinafter referred to as "Program”) instituted pursuant to the…”

Newark Gardens, Inc. v. Michigan Potato Indus. Comm'n, 847 F.2d 1201 (6th Cir. 1988). “; and the Michigan Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act (MAC-MA), Mich.Comp.Laws § 290.651, et seq. Under the MACMA, several commodity groups, such as those in cherries and apples, have promulgated programs under which growers presently pay mandatory assessments to their…”

Old Orchard Brands, Inc v. Dep't of Agric., 393 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “, (hereafter the afpa) preempts Michigan’s Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, MCL 290.651 et seq.; MSA 12.94(21) et seq.”

Dukesherer Farms, Inc v. Dir. of the Dep't of Agric., 432 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “The Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act (acma or Commodities Act), MCL 290.651 et seq.; MSA 12.94(21) et seq.”

Dep't of Agric. v. Appletree Mktg., LLC, 761 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Because the remedies conferred by the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act (ACMA), MCL 290.651 et seq., are the exclusive remedies for a violation of the act, we affirm.”

Dep't of Agric. v. Appletree Mktg., LLC, 764 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2009). “The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the plaintiffs may simultaneously pursue claims against Appletree Marketing, LLC, for alleged violations of the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, MCL 290.651 etseq., and for common-law and statutory…”

Dukesherer Farms, Inc. v. Dir. of Dep't of Agric., 220 N.W.2d 46 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “We do hold, on these facts, where the delay was substantial and the constitutional challenge was actually ancillary to the main attack on the agency action itself, that it was not an abuse of the court’s discretion to deny consideration of the constitutional challenge. The trial…”

Precision Stand. Inc v. Adp Tax Servs. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Rather, that case involved the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act (ACMA), MCL 290.651 et seq., which the Court determined “did not abrogate common law claims for conversion.”

Show all 13 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.