COMMISSION ON LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT
Act 46 of 1963 (2nd Ex. Sess.)
4.11 Commission on legislative apportionment; number, selection, regional distribution.
Sec. 1.
The commission on legislative apportionment established by the 1963 state constitution shall consist of 8 electors, 4 of whom shall be selected by the state central committee of each of the 2 political parties whose candidates for governor received the highest vote at the last general election at which a governor was elected preceding each apportionment. If a candidate for governor of a third political party has received at such election more than 25% of such gubernatorial vote, the commission shall consist of 12 members, 4 of whom shall be selected by the state central committee of the third political party. One resident of each of the following 4 regions shall be selected by each state central committee: (a) the Upper Peninsula; (b) the northern part of the Lower Peninsula, north of a line drawn along the northern boundaries of the counties of Bay, Midland, Isabella, Mecosta, Newaygo and Oceana; (c) southwestern Michigan, those counties south of region (b) and west of a line drawn along the western boundaries of the counties of Bay, Saginaw, Shiawassee, Ingham, Jackson and Hillsdale; and (d) southeastern Michigan, the remaining counties of the state.
History: 1963, 2nd Ex. Sess., Act 46, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Notes of Decisions
Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Fortune v Nat'l Cash Register Co, 373 Mass 96; 364 NE2d 1251 (1977); Perritt, Employee Dismissal Law & Practice (2d ed), § 4.11, pp 191-197. [4] I agree with Chief Justice CAVANAGH that it is inappropriate to address the legitimate-expectations issue.”
Roman v. Korson, 152 F.R.D. 101 (W.D. Mich. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Conte, Newberg on Class Actions, § 4.11, at 4-37 (3d Ed.1992). Secondly, “final relief of an injunctive nature or a corresponding declaratory nature, settling the legality of the behavior with respect to the class as a whole, [must be] appropriate.”
Lewis v. Farmer Jack Div., Inc, 327 N.W.2d 893 (Mich. 1982).
“See 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 4.11, p 339.” 178 Neb 431-432. See Schmidt v Richman Gordman, Inc, 191 Neb 345, 351; 215 NW2d 105 (1974).”
M & a Assocs., Inc. v. Vcx, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 454 (E.D. Mich. 1987).
“Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 4.11[A] [hereinafter Nimmer ]. 23. Unless the omission of a copyright notice is excused, publication of a work without a proper notice of copyright affixed injects the work into the public domain.”
United States v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” ZO § 4.11. Thus, institutions such as fine and performing arts facilities, primary and secondary schools, and public owned or operated office and service facilities may operate by right in the district, without obtaining a permit.”
Blue Water Cannabis Co. LLC v. City of Westland (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“Policy, §§ 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13. The Selection Committee was required to compile a list of the applicants and their scores, ranking them from highest to lowest, and to send that list to the City Council and to each applicant.”
Meds Cafe LLC v. City of Westland (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“Policy, §§ 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13. The Selection Committee was required to compile a list of the applicants and their scores, ranking them from highest to lowest, and to send that list to the City Council and to each applicant.”
Blue Water Cannabis Co. LLC v. City of Westland (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Policy, §§ 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13. The Selection Committee was required to compile a list of the applicants and their scores, ranking them from highest to lowest, and to send that list to the City Council and to each applicant.”
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.