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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5 (2026)

Impeachment; appearance and answer of accused.

✓ 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


6.5 Impeachment; appearance and answer of accused.

Sec. 5.

    The senate when so organized shall forthwith cause the person impeached to appear and to answer the charge exhibited against him and upon his appearance, he shall be entitled to a copy of the articles of impeachment, and to a reasonable time to answer the same.

History: 1872, Act 62, Imd. Eff. Mar. 30, 1872 ;-- How. 54 ;-- CL 1897, 22 ;-- CL 1915, 36 ;-- CL 1929, 63 ;-- CL 1948, 6.5

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: People v. Mass, 628 N.W.2d 540 (Mich. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Mass, 628 N.W.2d 540 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “[3] 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law, § 6.5, at 95. Thus, the overt act requirement ensures that the agreement to commit an unlawful objective has reached a sufficiently advanced stage to warrant preventative action.”
People v. Olsonite Corp., 265 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 21× “Article VI, § 6.5 of the Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulation, the single section in dispute in the instant case, is preceded by §§ 6.”
Chapdelaine v. Sochocki, 635 N.W.2d 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Cameron, §§ 6.5, 6.10, pp 193, 201. Such an easement may be implied by law where an owner of land splits his property so that one of the resulting parcels is landlocked except for access across the other parcel.”
People v. Blume, 505 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “However, if we were to require that an overt act occurred in Michigan before Michigan could punish the conspiracy designed to have a detrimental effect in Michigan, we "would have the anomalous requirement that more be shown for jurisdiction than is necessary for conviction of…”
People v. Bushard, 508 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “See also LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed), § 6.5(e), pp 554-555. However, as noted by Professor Perkins, a conspiracy to commit a crime is not necessarily ended by the fact that enough has been done to incur guilt of that offense, Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed), p 710.”
Scuderi v. Monumental Life Ins., 344 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 2004). · cites it 4× “] Plaintiff argues, however, that other employees violated other rules listed in § 6.5 and were not terminated, and from this, Plaintiff concludes that her misconduct was not sufficient to motivate her discharge.”
Sisters of Bon Secours Hosp. v. City of Grosse Pointe, 154 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 3× “Throughout the development of Bon Secours, its building height was governed by Grosse Pointe Ordinance No 96, § 6.5 which provided as follows: “In a residence B district no building shall exceed three stories or 50 feet in height, except that buildings or portions of buildings…”
People v. Blasius, 459 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1990). “) 10 See Salken, Balancing exigency and privacy in warrantless searches to prevent destruction of evidence: The need for a rule, 39 Hastings L J 283, 300, 323 (1988): "It is clear that the [federal] circuits disagree about the permissibility of warrantless intrusions based on…”
Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Health v. Olsonite Corp., 263 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “1 The Regulation, in pertinent part, provides: "Section 6.5 General Prohibition: "a. It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or cause the emission of such quantities of air contaminants from whatever source in such place or manner as to be detrimental to any person or to…”
Houston v. McKinlay, 143 N.W.2d 781 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “” City of Sylvan Lake, Charter, § 6.5 (1947). The threshold question before this Court thus requires a determination of the jurisdiction of the circuit court to issue a writ of quo warranto where the city official whose right to office sought to be *97 tested thereby holds said…”
Crossman v. Hanson, 143 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “” City of Sylvan Lake Charter, § 6.5 (1947). 2 “Circuit eourts have jurisdiction in all mandamus proceedings involving the action or nonaetion of any officer or board of any county, township, eity, village, or school district, or of the eommon eouneil of any city or village.”
Smith v. Smith (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 4× “§ 6.5 (Dkt. 88-21). 2 Beginning in the early 1990s, Martin and Wallace’ father began gifting them shares of E&E’s stock.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5(7) — 1 case
Scuderi v. Monumental Life Ins., 344 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “] Plaintiff argues, however, that other employees violated other rules listed in § 6.5 and were not terminated, and from this, Plaintiff concludes that her misconduct was not sufficient to motivate her discharge.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Ethan Tin Cao (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5(b) — 1 case
People v. Blasius, 459 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1990). “) 10 See Salken, Balancing exigency and privacy in warrantless searches to prevent destruction of evidence: The need for a rule, 39 Hastings L J 283, 300, 323 (1988): "It is clear that the [federal] circuits disagree about the permissibility of warrantless intrusions based on…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5(e) — 3 cases
People v. Blume, 505 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. 1993). “However, if we were to require that an overt act occurred in Michigan before Michigan could punish the conspiracy designed to have a detrimental effect in Michigan, we "would have the anomalous requirement that more be shown for jurisdiction than is necessary for conviction of…”
People v. Bushard, 508 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. 1993). “See also LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed), § 6.5(e), pp 554-555. However, as noted by Professor Perkins, a conspiracy to commit a crime is not necessarily ended by the fact that enough has been done to incur guilt of that offense, Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed), p 710.”
People v. Greene, 636 N.W.2d 270 (Mich. 2001).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5(f) — 1 case
Smith v. Smith (E.D. Mich. 2020). “§ 6.5 (Dkt. 88-21). 2 Beginning in the early 1990s, Martin and Wallace’ father began gifting them shares of E&E’s stock.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 6.5(i) — 1 case
S & S Builders Inc v. Kings Lane Ltd Dividend Hous. Assn Lp (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
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.