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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.4 (2026)

Impeachment; organization of senate as court, oaths, attendance of members.

✓ 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


6.4 Impeachment; organization of senate as court, oaths, attendance of members.

Sec. 4.

    Whenever an impeachment is directed the senate shall forthwith, after the hour of final adjournment of the legislature, be organized into a court for the trial of the same at the state capital, and such organization shall be deemed to be perfected when the presiding officer of the senate and all the members thereof, present, shall have taken oath or affirmation hereinbefore prescribed, and no member of the court shall sit, or give his vote upon such trial, until he shall have taken such oath or affirmation, which oath or affirmation shall be administered by the secretary of the senate, to the presiding officer thereof, and by the presiding officer to each of the members of the senate. The senate sitting upon the trial of an impeachment shall have the same power to compel the attendance of its members, as when engaged in the ordinary business of legislation.

History: 1872, Act 62, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1872 ;-- How. 53 ;-- CL 1897, 21 ;-- CL 1915, 35 ;-- CL 1929, 62 ;-- CL 1948, 6.4

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Abbey v. City of Jackson, 883 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abbey v. City of Jackson, 883 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 11× “2 Plaintiffs were paid more than Vfc times their regular ROP for overtime hours worked under § 6.4 of the CBA. Overtime pay is required whenever a fire fighter works more than 212 hours in a work period.”
Nedrow v. MacFarlane & Hays Co. Employees' Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, 476 F. Supp. 934 (E.D. Mich. 1979). · cites it 6× “In this case, the MacFarlane and Hays Company, as part of its compensation of employees, makes regular contributions to the defendant MacFarlane and Hays Company Employees’ Profit Sharing Plan and Trust.”
Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp., 730 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 4× “3d at 981 (“[e]xtrinsic evidence is to be used for the court’s understanding of the patent, not for the purpose of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims”); Harmon, Patents & the Federal Circuit, *719 supra, at § 6.4, p. 386 (“[i]f the meaning of the claim limitations…”
Finnerty v. Wireless Retail, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 3× “(Release and Termination *647 Agreement, attached as Tab 3 to Exhibit J of RadioShack’s Response to Plaintiffs Partial Motion for Summary Judgment) Under Section 6.4 of the Asset Purchase Agreement, WRI and RadioShack further agreed that, effective September 30, 2004, WRI would…”
In re Spiech Farms, LLC, 592 B.R. 152 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “at § 6.4). The Debtor was obligated to sell at least $1 million of Distributed Asset Pools to Produce Pay on an annual basis.”
Detroit Tigers, Inc. v. Ignite Sports Media, LLC., 203 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “at 13, § 6.4.) The M.S.A. § also, inter alia, contains a provision with a choice of law clause, and a forum selection clause, both indicating Illinois as the chosen state.”
ITT Indus., Inc. v. BorgWarner, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 640 (W.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 2× “D, Record of Decision (“ROD”) § 6.4.) ITT’s investigation revealed the presence of VOCs in the soil and groundwater that originated on the NBFF Site.”
Mi. Wis. Pipe. Co. v. Mi. Nat'l Bank, 324 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “5, p 57; Hemingway, The Law of Oil and Gas, § 6.4, pp 255-262. The reasonable and prudent operator standard recognizes that interruptions in production may have causes other than the operator's desire to hold the lease for its speculative value, Robinson v Gordon Oil Co, 258…”
Bender v. Newell Window Furnishings, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. Mich. 2010). “BY § 6.4(f).) Indeed, no subsequent agreement between the companies or between the company and the Union could lawfully do so.”
People v. Olsonite Corp., 265 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Section 6.4 prohibits open burning. 2 The four possible interpretations are: (1) 6.”
Michigan Wisconsin Pipeline Co. v. Michigan Nat'l Bank, 118 Mich. App. 74 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “5, p 57; Hemingway, The Law of Oil and Gas, § 6.4, pp 255-262. The reasonable and prudent operator standard recognizes that interruptions in production may have causes other than the operator’s desire to hold the lease for its speculative value, Robinson v Gordon Oil Co, 258…”
Kohut v. Lois & Richard Lewiston Living Trust (In re Lewiston), 532 B.R. 36 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015). · cites it 2× “Section 6.4 of the Trust, titled “Applicable Law,” provides that “[t]he validity, construction and all rights and obligations under this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Michigan.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.4(b) — 1 case
Nedrow v. MacFarlane & Hays Co. Employees' Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, 476 F. Supp. 934 (E.D. Mich. 1979). “In this case, the MacFarlane and Hays Company, as part of its compensation of employees, makes regular contributions to the defendant MacFarlane and Hays Company Employees’ Profit Sharing Plan and Trust.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.4(f) — 1 case
Bender v. Newell Window Furnishings, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 642 (W.D. Mich. 2010). “BY § 6.4(f).) Indeed, no subsequent agreement between the companies or between the company and the Union could lawfully do so.”
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.