OCCUPATIONAL CODE
Act 299 of 1980
339.602 Violation of act, rule, or order; penalties.
Sec. 602.
A person, school, or institution that violates this act or a rule or order promulgated or issued under this act shall be assessed 1 or more of the following penalties:
(a) Placement of a limitation on a license or certificate of registration for an occupation regulated under articles 8 to 25.
(b) Suspension of a license or certificate of registration.
(c) Denial of a license, certificate of registration, or renewal of a license or certificate of registration.
(d) Revocation of a license or certificate of registration.
(e) In the case of a person licensed or registered under this act and except as otherwise provided in this act, an administrative fine to be paid to the department of not more than $10,000.00.
(f) Censure.
(g) Probation.
(h) A requirement that restitution be made, based on proofs submitted to and findings made by the hearing examiner after a contested case.
History: 1980, Act 299, Imd. Eff. Oct. 21, 1980 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 83, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1981 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 278, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 2005 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 155, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 2007 ;-- Am. 2007, Act 157, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 2007 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 505, Eff. Apr. 1, 2014
PopularName Notes:
Act 299
Notes of Decisions
Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 872 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2015).
“601 or MCL 339.602]. The court shall assess a civil fine, to be paid to the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general bringing the action, of not less than $5,000.”
Price v. Long Realty, Inc, 502 N.W.2d 337 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“Although real estate licensees who perpetrate fraud are subject to penalties prescribed in MCL 339.602; MSA 18.425(602), the defendant’s license "does not specifically authorize the conduct that plaintiff alleges is violative of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.”
Claire-Ann Co. v. Christenson & Christenson, Inc., 566 N.W.2d 4 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“MCL 339.602; MSA 18.425(602). Of prime importance is the statutory directive that the Department of Licensing and Regulation may bring any appropriate action in the name of the people of this state to carry out and enforce the Occupational Code, and the Attorney General is…”
Bennett v. Batchik, 743 F. Supp. 1245 (E.D. Mich. 1990).
“Therefore, the Steinhoffs were entitled to restitution pursuant to MCLA 339.602. For the reasons that follow, this Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary-judgment.”
Arndt v. Dep't of Licensing & Reg., 383 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“” MCL 339.602; MSA 18.425(602). *104 The recommended fine of $300 was just that, a recommendation.”
In Re Paul E Buchanan (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “8 The Occupational Code states that a person who violates “a rule of conduct of an occupation,” or “any other provision of this act or a rule promulgated under this act for which a penalty is not otherwise prescribed” is “subject to the penalties prescribed in [MCL 339.602].”…”
Meadowlark Builders LLC v. Emily Evans (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“601(4); MCL 339.602. However, “[n]owhere in article 6 is there any intimation by the Legislature that private persons may bring or intervene in civil actions to enforce any of the provisions of the Occupational Code.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.602(b) — 1 case
In Re Paul E Buchanan (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“8 The Occupational Code states that a person who violates “a rule of conduct of an occupation,” or “any other provision of this act or a rule promulgated under this act for which a penalty is not otherwise prescribed” is “subject to the penalties prescribed in [MCL 339.602].”…”
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.