Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.34 (2026)
Action to contest collection of special assessment; illegal assessment roll.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
THE GENERAL LAW VILLAGE ACT
Act 3 of 1895
68.34 Action to contest collection of special assessment; illegal assessment roll.
Sec. 34.
An action to contest the collection of a special assessment shall be instituted under the tax tribunal act, 1973 PA 186, MCL 205.701 to 205.779.
History: Add. 1974, Act 4, Imd. Eff. Jan. 30, 1974 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 254, Imd. Eff. July 13, 1998
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1977–2010 · leading case: Freeman v. Kelvinator, Inc., 469 F. Supp. 999 (E.D. Mich. 1979).
Freeman v. Kelvinator, Inc., 469 F. Supp. 999 (E.D. Mich. 1979). “Just because mental damages from accidental industrial injuries are compensable does not mean mental injuries from other sources must unthinkingly be barred by the exclusivity provision.”
Wikman v. City of Novi, 322 N.W.2d 103 (Mich. 1982). “As to fourth-class cities: "An action of any kind shall not be instituted for the purpose of contesting or enjoining the collection of any special assessment unless, within 45 days after the confirmation of the special assessment roll, written notice is given to the council…”
Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 362 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. 1985). “, § 68.34(a), pp 13-62 to 13-63. Thus the Court in Stimson transformed Professor Larson’s distinction between injuries that are physical (exclusive remedy provision applies) and those that are not physical (exclusive remedy provision does not apply) into a distinction between…”
Broaddus v. Ferndale Fastener Div., Ring Screw Works, 269 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “” 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 68.34, pp 13.31-13.32. Applying Larson’s test to the present case, we conclude that the summary judgments granted to Ferndale Fastener and Fireman’s Fund were improper.”
Stimson v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 258 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “” 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 68.34, pp 13.31-13.32. See, also, 46 ALR3d 1279, 1283-1284.”
Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 743 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “2d at 814 (quoting 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 68.34(c) (1987) at 13-145-146 now at 6-104 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 104.”
Beauregard v. Clarke-Gravely Corp., 346 N.W.2d 48 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “’ 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 68.34, pp 13.31-13.32.” In this case, the trial court, guided by Stimson’s language emphasizing the nature of damages claimed, ruled that plaintiffs prayer for lost wages merely camouflaged an attempt to secure double damages.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.34(a) — 1 case
Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 362 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. 1985). “, § 68.34(a), pp 13-62 to 13-63. Thus the Court in Stimson transformed Professor Larson’s distinction between injuries that are physical (exclusive remedy provision applies) and those that are not physical (exclusive remedy provision does not apply) into a distinction between…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.34(c) — 1 case
Brown v. Cassens Transp. Co., 743 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “2d at 814 (quoting 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 68.34(c) (1987) at 13-145-146 now at 6-104 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 104.”
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.