Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.1726 (2026)
Repealed. 1982, Act 46, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
FORENSIC POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS ACT
Act 295 of 1972
338.1726 Repealed. 1982, Act 46, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983.
Repealed. 1982, Act 46, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983.
Compiler's Notes:
The repealed section pertained to prohibitions and conditions regarding polygraph examinations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1977–2012 · leading case: Cyrus v. Calhoun Cnty. Sheriff, 271 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
Cyrus v. Calhoun Cnty. Sheriff, 271 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Their complaint alleged that they were discharged as a result of a polygraph examination in violation of MCL 338.1726(2); MSA 18.186(26)(2). Plaintiffs claim that they had no enforceable right to challenge their discharges, as they were probationary employees.”
State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981). “Co-op 1976) (prohibits subjecting employees or applicants to lie detector test or directly or indirectly requesting them to take it; use by law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations exempted); Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 338.1726 (1976) (prohibits employer requiring…”
Leelanau Cnty. Sheriff v. Kiessel, 824 N.W.2d 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “70); Cyrus v Calhoun Co Sheriff, 85 Mich App 397, 400 ; 271 NW2d 249 (1978) (holding that MCL 338.1726(2), prohibiting discharge based solely on the results of a polygraph test, limited a sheriffs authority under MCL 51.”
Heath v. Alma Plastics Co., 328 N.W.2d 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “1821 (unlawful civil arrest); MCL 338.1726; MSA 18.Í86(26) (discharge of employee for refusal to take polygraph exam).”
Roberts v. City of Jackson Civil Serv. Bd., 255 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 338.1726(2); MSA 18.186(26)(2) provides: "An employer or agent shall not discharge an employee solely because of an alleged or actual opinion that the employee did not tell the truth during a polygraph examination, lie detector test, or similar test.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 338.1726(2) — 3 cases
Cyrus v. Calhoun Cnty. Sheriff, 271 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Their complaint alleged that they were discharged as a result of a polygraph examination in violation of MCL 338.1726(2); MSA 18.186(26)(2). Plaintiffs claim that they had no enforceable right to challenge their discharges, as they were probationary employees.”
Leelanau Cnty. Sheriff v. Kiessel, 824 N.W.2d 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “70); Cyrus v Calhoun Co Sheriff, 85 Mich App 397, 400 ; 271 NW2d 249 (1978) (holding that MCL 338.1726(2), prohibiting discharge based solely on the results of a polygraph test, limited a sheriffs authority under MCL 51.”
Roberts v. City of Jackson Civil Serv. Bd., 255 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 338.1726(2); MSA 18.186(26)(2) provides: "An employer or agent shall not discharge an employee solely because of an alleged or actual opinion that the employee did not tell the truth during a polygraph examination, lie detector test, or similar test.”
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.