Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 476 / Act 254 of 1933
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 476.13 (2026)

Discontinuance of service; written notice; order; revocation of certificate.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT


Act 254 of 1933


476.13 Discontinuance of service; written notice; order; revocation of certificate.

Sec. 13.

    A motor carrier of general commodities authorized by this act to operate shall not discontinue any service established under this act without an order of the commission. A motor carrier of general commodities shall provide written notice of discontinuance to the commission in accordance with the rules of the commission. A certificate of authority under which service is discontinued for more than 30 days without the previous order of the commission authorizing the discontinuance may be revoked after notice.

History: 1933, Act 254, Eff. Oct. 17, 1933 ;-- CL 1948, 476.13 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 399, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1982 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 493, Eff. Apr. 1, 2015

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1954–1978 · leading case: Associated Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 140 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. 1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Associated Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 140 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. 1966). · cites it 8× “CL 1948, § 476.13 (Stat Ann § 22.546). The proceedings before the commission were instituted on complaint of eight common motor carriers, competitors of Yellow Transit.”
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 252 N.W.2d 495 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 16× “The appellants next insist that the PSC merely found a curtailment, rather than a discontinuance of service by Yellow.”
J. E. Bejin Cartage Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 89 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. 1958). · cites it 5× “” The plaintiffs attacked the foregoing transfer authorized by the commission upon the ground that the authority transferred had been forfeited prior to transfer 51s a consequence of section 13 of article 2 of the act (CL 1948, § 476.13 [Stat Ann § 22.546]), which provides: “Sec.”
George F. Alger Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 62 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. 1954). “The question presented is whether intervening defendants Beaver and Wells, copartners and holders of a Michigan public service commission certificate as limited common motor carrier, abandoned or discontinued service thereunder for more than 10 days without previous authority…”
Short Freight Lines, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n & Cent. Transp., Inc., 181 N.W.2d 560 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “had abandoned or discontinued service to the town of Pinconning 1 within the meaning of MCLA § 476.13 (Stat Ann § 22.546), 2 such that its operating authority should be considered revoked as a matter of law.”
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. PSC, 269 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “MCL 476.13; MSA 22.546. We need not review the 17-year history of this controversy, nor specify the facts.”
Hogue Steel Express Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 184 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “The Michigan Public Service Commission ruled in an order of December 9, 1968, that the plaintiff had voluntarily and intentionally abandoned operating authority contrary to § 13, Art 2, Act 254 of the Public Acts of 1933, being MCLA § 476.13 (Stat Ann 1970 Rev § 22.546).”
Olson Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 154 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “CL 1948, § 476.13 (Stat Ann § 22.546): “No common motor carrier authorized by this act to operate shall abandon or discontinue any service established under the provisions of this aet without an order of the commission.”
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.