Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 6 / Act 62 of 1872
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2 (2026)

Impeachment; trial by senate, judgment.

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

IMPEACHMENTS


Act 62 of 1872


6.2 Impeachment; trial by senate, judgment.

Sec. 2.

    Every impeachment shall be tried by the senate. When the governor or lieutenant governor is tried the chief justice of the supreme court shall preside. When an impeachment is directed the senate shall take an oath or affirmation truly and impartially to try and determine the same according to the evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2/3 of the members elected. Judgment, in case of impeachment, shall not extend further than removal from office, but the party convicted shall be liable to punishment according to law.

History: 1872, Act 62, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1872 ;-- How. 51 ;-- CL 1897, 19 ;-- CL 1915, 33 ;-- CL 1929, 60 ;-- CL 1948, 6.2

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: In Re CMS Energy ERISA Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 898 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re CMS Energy ERISA Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 898 (E.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 3× “§ 6.2; 2001 Plan Document. § 6.2. The Plan states 11.”
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “55 1 LaFave & Scott, § 6.2(c), p 446 (recognizing the defense, but emphasizing that “impossibility means impossibility”); see also United States v Spingola, 464 F2d 909, 911 (CA 7, 1972) (holding that “[g]enuine impossibility is a proper defense to a crime of omission”).”
People v. Thousand, 631 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 158 (1993), quoting 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 6.2, p. 18. *702 In determining whether "impossibility," were we to recognize the doctrine, is a viable defense to a charge of attempt under M.”
Powers v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch., 398 N.W.2d 411 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “[22] See Keeton, Basic Text on Insurance Law, §§ 6.2, 6.3, pp 348-361; see also Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford University Press, 1979), pp 731, 734.”
Bruce Whitman v. City of Burton, 874 N.W.2d 743 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 23× “] Section 6.2(b) provides that [a]ll other administrative officers [except the City Attorney and the City Auditor] shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to the approval of the Council, and shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor for indefinite terms, except that the Mayor…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Ruuska, 314 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “[22] See Keeton, Basic Text on Insurance Law, §§ 6.2, 6.3, pp 348-361; See also Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford University Press, 1979), pp 731, 734.”
Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp., 730 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 4× “” Harmon, Patents & the Federal Circuit, supra, at § 6.2, p. 352. “[A] party wishing to alter the meaning of a clear claim term must overcome the presumption that the ordinary and accustomed meaning is the proper one, demonstrating why such an alteration is required.”
Anderson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 351 F. Supp. 2d 740 (W.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff next argues that defendant’s interpretation of the Plan is unreasonable because defendant’s reading of Section 6.2 renders the Plan illusory. Plaintiff states that defendant’s reading of “is receiving” (benefits under the SSA) leads to the conclusion that no…”
Forge v. Smith, 580 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. 1998). “” 30 Defendants do not disagree that the representations at most constituted a license; they simply contend that the license was revocable at will.”
City of Kalamazoo v. Michigan Disposal Serv. Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 219 (W.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “1 or is removed pursuant to Section 6.2, any documents or other physical materials containing confidential information provided by such Member to common counsel, to the other Members, or to any technical consultant retained for the Group, shall, upon written request of the…”
United Rentals (North Am.), Inc. v. Keizer, 202 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “If, in any such event, the business of the Company is not so continued or so resumed, such event shall be deemed to constitute termination without cause by the Company as provided in section 6.2. *733 (Def.Ex.F, ¶ 6.6.) Finally, the employment agreement expressly reserved the…”
Midfield Concession Enter., Inc. v. Areas USA, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 1122 (E.D. Mich. 2015). · cites it 3× “" Relatedly, § 6.2 of the JV Agreement states, “each Member shall share in the Profits and Losses of the Joint Venture in proportion to their respective Capital Interests.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(1) — 2 cases
Thomas W Tullio v. Attica Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Thomas W Tullio v. Attica Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(1)(A) — 2 cases
Thomas W Tullio v. Attica Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Thomas W Tullio v. Attica Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(C) — 1 case
Talmer West Bank v. Terry Lynn Stewart Revocable Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(E) — 1 case
Bluffs at Gull Lake LLC v. Ross Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(a) — 4 cases
Anderson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 351 F. Supp. 2d 740 (W.D. Mich. 2004). “Plaintiff next argues that defendant’s interpretation of the Plan is unreasonable because defendant’s reading of Section 6.2 renders the Plan illusory. Plaintiff states that defendant’s reading of “is receiving” (benefits under the SSA) leads to the conclusion that no…”
United States v. Cassity, 604 F. Supp. 1566 (E.D. Mich. 1985).
Wnc Hous. Lp v. Shelborne Dev. Co. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Dustin Lee MacLeod (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(b) — 5 cases
Bruce Whitman v. City of Burton, 874 N.W.2d 743 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “] Section 6.2(b) provides that [a]ll other administrative officers [except the City Attorney and the City Auditor] shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to the approval of the Council, and shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor for indefinite terms, except that the Mayor…”
Whitman v. City of Burton, 810 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
Bruce Whitman v. City of Burton (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Wnc Hous. Lp v. Shelborne Dev. Co. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Dustin Lee MacLeod (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(c) — 3 cases
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012). “55 1 LaFave & Scott, § 6.2(c), p 446 (recognizing the defense, but emphasizing that “impossibility means impossibility”); see also United States v Spingola, 464 F2d 909, 911 (CA 7, 1972) (holding that “[g]enuine impossibility is a proper defense to a crime of omission”).”
People of Michigan v. Joshua Lamar-James Stewart (Mich. 2023).
People of Michigan v. Joshua Lamar-James Stewart (Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.2(d) — 1 case
Reilly v. Marion Twp., 317 N.W.2d 693 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
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.