Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 290.701 (2026)

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 MARKETING AND BARGAINING ACT


Act 344 of 1972


290.701 Short title.

Sec. 1.

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

History: 1972, Act 344, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973

Constitutionality Notes:

    This act is constitutional on its face. Michigan Canners & Freezers Association, Inc v Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Board, 416 Mich 706, 332 NW2nd 134 (1982).

    The Michigan Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act, MCL 290.701 et seq., authorizes producers' associations to engage in conduct that the federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 forbids and stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. To that extent, therefore, the Michigan Act is pre-empted by the AFPA. Michigan Canners and Freezers Association, Inc v Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining Board, 467 US 461; 104 S Ct 2518; 81 L Ed2d 399 (1984).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1976–2000 · leading case: Shavers v. Attorney Gen., 267 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 1978).
Shavers v. Attorney Gen., 267 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 2× “At issue in Michigan Canners were "important questions of first impression regarding the constitutionality and construction of the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act, MCL 290.701 et seq.; MSA 12.94(101) et seq.”
Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn., Inc. v. Agric. Mktg. & Bargaining Bd., 467 U.S. 461 (1984). “” 4 *466 The Michigan Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §290.701 et seq. (1984), also designed to facilitate collective action among producers, includes the same prohibitions as the federal Act.”
Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn. v. Agric. Mktg. & Bargaining Bd., 245 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “The instant case poses important questions of first impression regarding the constitutionality and construction of the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act, MCLA 290.701, et seq.; MSA 12.94(101), et seq.”
Cherry Growers, Inc. v. Agric. Mktg. & Bargaining Bd., 610 N.W.2d 613 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “In these consolidated cases, all involving the same three parties, we are presented issues of jurisdiction and statutory construction under the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act (hereafter the amba or the act), MCL 290.701 et seq.-, MSA 12.94(101) et seq.”
Newark Gardens, Inc. v. Michigan Potato Indus. Comm'n, 847 F.2d 1201 (6th Cir. 1988). “The MAMBA, however, also created a state-administered system whereby producers’ associations could be certified as exclusive bargaining agents for all producers of a particular commodity. Mich.Comp.Laws Ann.”
Old Orchard Brands, Inc v. Dep't of Agric., 393 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “In that decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the afpa preempted Michigan’s Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act, MCL 290.701 et seq.; MSA 12.94(101) et seq.”
Michigan Canners & Freezers Ass'n v. Agric. Mktg. & Bargaining Bd., 332 N.W.2d 134 (Mich. 1982). “*711 In 1976, an opinion and supporting orders were issued remanding the case to the circuit court for the development of a record sufficient to permit consideration of the plaintiffs’ original challenge to the constitutionality of the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act,…”
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.