Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 435.1 (2026)
Repealed. 1962, Act 127, Eff. Mar. 28, 1963.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
435.1 Repealed. 1962, Act 127, Eff. Mar. 28, 1963.
Repealed. 1962, Act 127, Eff. Mar. 28, 1963.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1951–1965 · leading case: People's Appliance, Inc. v. City of Flint, 99 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. 1959).
People's Appliance, Inc. v. City of Flint, 99 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. 1959). “" (CL 1948, § 435.1 [Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.851]). The city ordinance in question is directed against any person, firm or corporation whether owner, proprietor, agent or employee, from conducting or engaging in the business of selling, renting, leasing or exchanging furniture.”
Watnick v. City of Detroit, 113 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. 1962). “tributing Company, brought this suit in the circuit court of Wayne county to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance, asserting as grounds of the alleged invalidity thereof that it was unreasonable and discriminatory against dealers in and sellers of jewelry, that it denied to them…”
Mathieu v. Wubbe, 47 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. 1951). “In view of the foregoing we need not decide when the telegram became effective as an acceptance, or what effect CL 1948, § 435.1 (Stat Ann § 18.851), dealing with Sunday contracts, had on this telegram.”
Zitomer v. Kelmenson, 134 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. 1965). “The “additional instruments” as later executed are presumptively valid, certainly as against any claim defendant might have made that they too were executed in violation of the Sunday statute which was then in effect (CL 1948, § 435.”
Marks Furs, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 112 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. 1961). “The issue, properly raised in this case, is whether the ordinance of the City of Detroit, No *122 222-F, is invalid because it contravenes the provisions of the State's Sunday closing statute, CL 1948, § 435.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 18.851 et seq.”
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.