Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 47 / Act 275 of 1913
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 47.11 (2026)

Board of county auditors; members' interest in contracts prohibited.

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

BOARD OF COUNTY AUDITORS


Act 275 of 1913


47.11 Board of county auditors; members' interest in contracts prohibited.

Sec. 11.

    No member of said board of auditors shall be directly or indirectly interested in any contract with said county which may involve the expenditure of any county money, or in the sale of supplies to said county, or in the performance of any paid services of said county other than the services as a member of said board.

History: 1913, Act 275, Eff. Aug. 14, 1913 ;-- CL 1915, 2355 ;-- CL 1929, 1213 ;-- CL 1948, 47.11

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: People v. Brooks, 459 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Brooks, 459 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “This conclusion is buttressed by the Legislature’s use of the language "Except as otherwise provided in section 606” set forth in §27. Exceptions operate to restrict the general applicability of legislative language.”
Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 2d 878 (W.D. Mich. 2001). “The Seventh Circuit in Brown has held that § 1640(a) “says that statutory damages are available ‘only’ for violations of *887 enumerated subsections and rules.”
Tippins 342855 v. Holden (W.D. Mich. 2020). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 250-51 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Johnson 753595 v. Dixon-Ingalls (W.D. Mich. 2020). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 250–51 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Dunbar 129278 v. Knaack (W.D. Mich. 2021). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 246–47 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Jenkins 155668 v. McLearon (W.D. Mich. 2021). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 246–47 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Jenkins 155668 v. Davids (W.D. Mich. 2021). “2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”). Because Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the ostensibly “imminent” danger he faces are incapable of…”
Jenkins 155668 v. Munson Healthcare Manistee Hosp. (W.D. Mich. 2021). “2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”). Because Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the “imminent” danger he faces are incapable of redress in the…”
Green 189440 v. Covert (W.D. Mich. 2021). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 246–47 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Jackson 748757 v. Hoffman (W.D. Mich. 2021). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 246–47 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Jenkins 155668 v. Washington (W.D. Mich. 2021). “2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”). Indeed, Plaintiff himself has filed eight cases between May and August 2021, alleging the same imminent…”
Jackson 748757 v. Novak (W.D. Mich. 2022). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.11 at 246–47 (6th ed. 2000) (“[W]here a general provision in a statute has certain limited exceptions, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than exceptions.”
Show all 24 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.