Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 388 / Act 94 of 1979
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1621 (2026)

Repealed. 2017, Act 108, Eff. Oct. 1, 2017.

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

THE STATE SCHOOL AID ACT OF 1979


Act 94 of 1979


388.1621 Repealed. 2017, Act 108, Eff. Oct. 1, 2017.

    Repealed. 2017, Act 108, Eff. Oct. 1, 2017.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to districts identified as among lowest achieving 5% of public schools.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1980–1997 · leading case: Schmidt v. Dep't of Educ., 490 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schmidt v. Dep't of Educ., 490 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 16× “The state allocates unrestricted funds according to a formula set forth in § 21(1) of the act, MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921), that guarantees to each district a minimum amount of funding per pupil on the basis of the district's levied millage rate.”
Durant v. State Bd. of Educ., 381 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 10× “The reduction of aid to the Waterford School District is the result of the formula adopted by the Legislature in MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921) (hereafter § 21).”
Gwinn Area Cmty. Schs. v. State of Mich., 574 F. Supp. 736 (W.D. Mich. 1983). · cites it 4× “§ 388.1621. Under the equalization formula, the State considers “federal impact aid,” provided to local school districts affected by certain federal activities pursuant to the Educational Agencies Financial Aid Act, 20 U.”
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 296 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Defendants, pursuant to the school aid formula found in 1979 PA 94 , §21(1); MCL 388.1621(1); MSA 15.1919(921)(1), reduced the state aid for education to the school district from the $663.”
State Bd. of Educ. v. Houghton Lake Cmty. Schs., 425 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. 1988). “, MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). Moreover, even the poorest districts are subject to no actual penalty under MCL 380.”
Pontiac Sch. Dist. v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 563 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “2 million in additional state aid for every mill that was levied to pay for the deficit reduction pursuant to § 21 of the State School Aid Act, MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). 2 According to Franey and Erickson, the decision to repay the $9.”
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 463 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “v Not only may the Governor not reduce categorical funding for state-mandated services and activities below the level paid in 1978-79, but the Legislature may not reduce the same funds by operation of the "base revenue reduction” provision set forth in MCL 388.1621(4); MSA…”
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 498 F. Supp. 732 (W.D. Mich. 1980). “§ 388.1621. Also affecting the District’s finances have been yearly changes in the basic state aid formula which have resulted in the Kalamazoo School District receiving less state aid per child in every year since 1977-78.”
Bay City Educ. Ass'n v. Bay City Pub. Schs., 422 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. 1988). “, and Levin, Brickley, Boyle, Archer, and Griffin, JJ., concurred with Cav-ANAGH, J. 1 The school aid formula adopted by the Legislature ties the amount of state funding available to a local school district to the district’s state equalized valuation.”
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 513 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “This Court further ruled that the authority to make budget reductions by executive order pursuant to Const 1963, art 5, § 20, does not apply to categorical aid and that the Legislature may not reduce categorical aid by operation of the base revenue reduction provision of § 21(4)…”
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 Mich. App. 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). Pittsfield Twp v City of Saline, 103 Mich App 99, 104 ; 302 NW2d 608 (1981).”
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. BD. OF EDUC., 344 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “[15] MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). [16] Pittsfield Twp v City of Saline, 103 Mich App 99, 104 ; 302 NW2d 608 (1981).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1621(1) — 4 cases
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 296 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Defendants, pursuant to the school aid formula found in 1979 PA 94 , §21(1); MCL 388.1621(1); MSA 15.1919(921)(1), reduced the state aid for education to the school district from the $663.”
Gwinn Area Cmty. Schs. v. State of Mich., 574 F. Supp. 736 (W.D. Mich. 1983). “§ 388.1621. Under the equalization formula, the State considers “federal impact aid,” provided to local school districts affected by certain federal activities pursuant to the Educational Agencies Financial Aid Act, 20 U.”
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 Mich. App. 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). Pittsfield Twp v City of Saline, 103 Mich App 99, 104 ; 302 NW2d 608 (1981).”
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. BD. OF EDUC., 344 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “[15] MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921). [16] Pittsfield Twp v City of Saline, 103 Mich App 99, 104 ; 302 NW2d 608 (1981).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1621(4) — 2 cases
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 463 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “v Not only may the Governor not reduce categorical funding for state-mandated services and activities below the level paid in 1978-79, but the Legislature may not reduce the same funds by operation of the "base revenue reduction” provision set forth in MCL 388.1621(4); MSA…”
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 513 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “This Court further ruled that the authority to make budget reductions by executive order pursuant to Const 1963, art 5, § 20, does not apply to categorical aid and that the Legislature may not reduce categorical aid by operation of the base revenue reduction provision of § 21(4)…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1621(5) — 1 case
Schmidt v. Dep't of Educ., 490 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. 1992). “The state allocates unrestricted funds according to a formula set forth in § 21(1) of the act, MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921), that guarantees to each district a minimum amount of funding per pupil on the basis of the district's levied millage rate.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1621(6) — 1 case
Schmidt v. Dep't of Educ., 490 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. 1992). “The state allocates unrestricted funds according to a formula set forth in § 21(1) of the act, MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921), that guarantees to each district a minimum amount of funding per pupil on the basis of the district's levied millage rate.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1621(7) — 1 case
Schmidt v. Dep't of Educ., 490 N.W.2d 584 (Mich. 1992). “The state allocates unrestricted funds according to a formula set forth in § 21(1) of the act, MCL 388.1621; MSA 15.1919(921), that guarantees to each district a minimum amount of funding per pupil on the basis of the district's levied millage rate.”
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.