Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 418 / Act 317 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.261 (2026)

Repealed. 1989, Act 115, Eff. June 30, 1991.

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

WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969


Act 317 of 1969


418.261 Repealed. 1989, Act 115, Eff. June 30, 1991.

    Repealed. 1989, Act 115, Eff. June 30, 1991.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to employment of chief administrative officer, powers and duties of chairperson, rules, and disposition of matters pending on review.

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1974–1991 · leading case: Williams v. Hofley Mfg. Co., 424 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Hofley Mfg. Co., 424 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 8× “We are asked in this appeal to consider a procedural due process challenge to the constitutionality of two-member, interest-designated panels of Michigan's Workers' Compensation Appeal Board as provided in 1985 PA 103 , § 261, MCL 418.261; MSA 17.237(261). [1] We conclude that…”
Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Dep't of Labor, 384 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 8× “[23] MCL 418.261; MSA 17.237(261). [24] MCL 418.”
Williams v. Chrysler Corp., 406 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Finally, Chrysler challenges the constitutionality of MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2) which provides: Except as otherwise provided for in this act, a matter pending review before the appeal board shall be assigned to a panel of 2 members of the *15 board for disposition, with…”
Aquilina v. Gen. Motors Corp., 267 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. 1978). “” MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261X2). Michigan’s appellate courts are charged with the responsibilities of (1) reviewing questions of law involved in any final order of the appeal board, (2) determining whether there is any fraud associated with the findings of fact made by the…”
Ratliff v. Gen. Motors Corp., 339 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “At the relevant time in question, MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261X2) stated: *424 "A matter pending on review shall be assigned to a panel of 3 members of the board for disposition.”
Smith v. Greenville Prods. Co., 462 N.W.2d 789 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2). Reversed and remanded.”
Pitoniak v. Borman’s, Inc, 305 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “” Under MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2), the individual members of the board are required to be rotated evenly among all panels: "A matter pending on review shall be assigned to a panel of 3 members of the board for disposition.”
Vayiar v. Vic Tanny Int'l, 319 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “" MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2) provides for *391 the rotation of individual members of the board among the panels: "A matter pending on review shall be assigned to a panel of 3 members of the board for disposition.”
Dries v. Chrysler Corp., 259 N.W.2d 561 (Mich. 1977). “Under MCLA 418.261; MSA 17.237(261), the board has the authority to make rules on appellate procedure.”
Miller v. Midwest Foundry Corp., 226 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “73? Prior to July 23, 1973, MCLA 418.261; MSA 17.237(261) provided in part as follows: "Any matter pending on review may be assigned to 4 members of the board for disposition.”
Pye v. Chrysler Corp., 475 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Because the two original panel members were unable to agree on a disposition of the case, a new panel member was assigned pursuant to MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2). The third panel member read the statute as granting him the authority to write the controlling decision…”
Kozlowski v. Chrysler Corp., 220 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “6[21]) was repealed and replaced by MCLA 418.261; MSA 17.237(261). This statute provides in the second paragraph thereof as follows: "Any matter pending on review may be assigned to 4 members of the board for disposition.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.261(1) — 1 case
Sharp v. Allied Supermarkets, Inc., 215 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.261(2) — 9 cases
Williams v. Hofley Mfg. Co., 424 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1988). “We are asked in this appeal to consider a procedural due process challenge to the constitutionality of two-member, interest-designated panels of Michigan's Workers' Compensation Appeal Board as provided in 1985 PA 103 , § 261, MCL 418.261; MSA 17.237(261). [1] We conclude that…”
Williams v. Chrysler Corp., 406 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Finally, Chrysler challenges the constitutionality of MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2) which provides: Except as otherwise provided for in this act, a matter pending review before the appeal board shall be assigned to a panel of 2 members of the *15 board for disposition, with…”
Aquilina v. Gen. Motors Corp., 267 N.W.2d 923 (Mich. 1978). “” MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261X2). Michigan’s appellate courts are charged with the responsibilities of (1) reviewing questions of law involved in any final order of the appeal board, (2) determining whether there is any fraud associated with the findings of fact made by the…”
Ratliff v. Gen. Motors Corp., 339 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “At the relevant time in question, MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261X2) stated: *424 "A matter pending on review shall be assigned to a panel of 3 members of the board for disposition.”
Smith v. Greenville Prods. Co., 462 N.W.2d 789 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “MCL 418.261(2); MSA 17.237(261)(2). Reversed and remanded.”
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.