MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT
Act 274 of 1984
445.787 Repeal of acts and parts of acts.
Sec. 17.
The following acts and parts of acts are repealed:
(a) Act No. 255 of the Public Acts of 1899, being sections 445.701 to 445.712 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(b) Act No. 229 of the Public Acts of 1905, being sections 445.731 to 445.736 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(c) Act No. 329 of the Public Acts of 1905, being sections 445.761 to 445.767 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(d) Sections 553 to 555 and 557 to 560 of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.553 to 750.555 and 750.557 to 750.560 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(e) Section 2155 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being section 600.2155 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(f) Act No. 135 of the Public Acts of 1913, being sections 445.791 to 445.798 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(g) Act No. 282 of the Public Acts of 1937, being sections 445.171 to 445.184 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: 1984, Act 274, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985
Notes of Decisions
Rehmann, Robson & Co. v. McMahan, 466 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“] The statute was repealed by § 17 of the Antitrust Reform Act, 1984 PA 274 , MCL 445.787; MSA 28.70(17), which took effect on March 29, 1985.”
McElwee v. Wharton, 19 F. Supp. 2d 766 (W.D. Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.787 . Despite the repeal of the previous sections, MARA, at Section 18, contained a savings clause, in order to make the repeal ineffective as to prior fines, forfeitures and liability incurred.”
Cardiology Assocs. of Sw. Michigan, Pc v. Zencka, 400 N.W.2d 606 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“These provisions were repealed by § 17 of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, 1984 PA 274 , MCL 445.787; MSA 28.70(17), which took effect March 29, 1985.”
Burns Clinic Med. Ctr. v. Vorenkamp, 418 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).
“Because the covenant here at issue was void from its inception and because the repealing act did not expressly seek to validate prior void agreements, MCL 445.787; MSA 28.70(17), the subsequent repeal of MCL 445.”
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.