Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 46 / Act 261 of 1966
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.406 (2026)

Apportionment plan; petition for review.

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

APPORTIONMENT OF COUNTY BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS


Act 261 of 1966


46.406 Apportionment plan; petition for review.

Sec. 6.

    Any registered voter of the county within 30 days after the filing of the plan for his county may petition the court of appeals to review such plan to determine if the plan meets the requirements of the laws of this state. Any findings of the court of appeals may be appealed to the supreme court of the state as provided by law.

History: 1966, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Apportionment of Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1982, 321 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Apportionment of Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1982, 321 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 12× “The Court of Appeals determined that the plans adopted by those commissions did not meet "the requirements of the laws of this state" pursuant to MCL 46.406; MSA 5.359(6). We conclude that the Court of Appeals did err in the case of the WCAC, but we are not persuaded that error…”
O'CONNOR v. Eckardt, 178 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “The plan was never reviewed as provided in MCLA § 46.406 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 5.”
In Re Apportionment of Clinton Cnty.-1991, 483 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “This petition for review of a newly adopted apportionment plan for the Board of Commissioners of Clinton County comes before this Court for review pursuant to MCL 46.406; MSA 5.359(6). This Court by our order of January 23, 1992, struck down the plan initially adopted, because…”
Apportionment of Muskegon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners—1970, 178 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “PA 1966, No 261, § 6 (MCLA § 46.406, Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 5.”
In Re Apportionment of Tuscola Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 644 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2002). “2 Judicial review is available under MCL 46.406: *81 Any registered voter of the county within 30 days after the filing of the plan for his county may petition the court of appeals to review such plan to determine if the plan meets the requirements of the laws of this state.”
People v. Martin, 229 N.W.2d 809 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “” GCR 1963, 16, provides: "Rules of practice set forth in any statute, not in conflict with any of these rules, shall be deemed to be in effect until superseded by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.”
In Re Apportionment of Muskegon Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors—1968, 164 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “1966, No 261, § 6, MCLA, § 46.406 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
In re Apportionment of the Ontonagon Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors—1967, 156 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “1 Within the statutory time limit and pursuant to PA 1966, No 261, § 6 (MCLA, § 46.406 [Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
Apportionment of Huron Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 163 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “In this cause a petition for review of the apportionment plan 1 for the Huron County Board of Supervisors having been filed pursuant to PA 1966, No 261 [MCLA § 46.406 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
In Re Apportionment - Cass Cnty. - 2021 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “In this original action for review of an apportionment plan, see MCL 46.406, petitioner, James Pedersen, asks this Court to review whether respondent, Cass County Apportionment Commission (the Commission), improperly adopted its apportionment plan for 2021.”
Apportionment of Sanilac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 162 N.W.2d 913 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “In this cause a petition for review of the apportionment plan 1 for the Sanilac County Board of Supervisors having been filed pursuant to PA 1966, No 261 [MCLA § 46.406 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 5.”
Apportionment of Cass Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners-1972, 197 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “The review of the apportionment plan for the Cass County Board of Commissioners is before us upon the petition filed by the Chairman of the Cass County Apportionment Commission pursuant to our order upon review of the prior plan in 1970; several registered voters of Cass County…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.