Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 393.358 (2026)

Powers of commission pursuant to state-federal agreements.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS

Act 260 of 1978

393.358 Powers of commission pursuant to state-federal agreements.

Sec. 8.

The commission, pursuant to state-federal agreements: may cooperate with the federal government in carrying out the purposes of a federal statute or regulation, not in conflict with state law, which pertains to rehabilitation of blind persons; may adopt methods of administration, not in conflict with state law, which are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the agreements or plans for rehabilitation of blind persons; and may comply with conditions, not in conflict with state law, which are necessary to secure the full benefits of federal statute.

History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978

Compiler's Notes:

For transfer of powers and duties of the commission for the blind from the family independence agency, or its director, to the department of labor and economic growth, or its director, by Type II transfer, see E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.

For transfer of powers and duties of commission for the blind to bureau of services for blind persons within department of licensing and regulatory affairs, see E.R.O. No. 2012-5, compiled at MCL 445.2033.

For the transfer of powers and duties of the bureau of services for blind persons and the commission for blind persons and its directors from the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to the department of labor and economic opportunity, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2014–2014 · leading case: Fellows v. Michigan Comm'n for the Blind, 854 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fellows v. Michigan Comm'n for the Blind, 854 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “” In support of its theory, the court cited one administrative decision in which the board had awarded monetary damages to a blind licensee, and claimed that MCL 393.358 implied that the board had the authority to do so.”

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.