Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 400 / Act 220 of 1935
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.212 (2026)

Repealed. 1955, Act 220, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955.

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

MICHIGAN CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE


Act 220 of 1935


400.212 Repealed. 1955, Act 220, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955.

    Repealed. 1955, Act 220, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section conveyed land for use of Michigan children's village, gave state hospital commission jurisdiction over village, and regulated admissions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2017–2017 · leading case: Est. of Patricia Bacon v. Dept of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Patricia Bacon v. Dept of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The estate appealed to the Macomb Circuit Court, which as noted above, reversed the administrative decision and held that the hardship definition in the state plan and BAM 120 exceeded the scope of MCL 400.”
Est. of Patricia Bacon v. Dept of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The estate appealed to the Macomb Circuit Court, which as noted above, reversed the administrative decision and held that the hardship definition in the state plan and BAM 120 exceeded the scope of MCL 400.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.212(G)(3) — 2 cases
Est. of Patricia Bacon v. Dept of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The estate appealed to the Macomb Circuit Court, which as noted above, reversed the administrative decision and held that the hardship definition in the state plan and BAM 120 exceeded the scope of MCL 400.”
Est. of Patricia Bacon v. Dept of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The estate appealed to the Macomb Circuit Court, which as noted above, reversed the administrative decision and held that the hardship definition in the state plan and BAM 120 exceeded the scope of MCL 400.”
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.