Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.492 (2026)

Public records; inspection; use; copying; removal.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE

Act 328 of 1931

750.492 Public records; inspection; use; copying; removal.

Sec. 492.

Any officer having the custody of any county, city, or township records in this state who shall when requested fail or neglect to furnish proper and reasonable facilities for the inspection and examination of the records and files in his or her office and for making memoranda of transcripts therefrom during the usual business hours, which shall not be less than 4 hours per day, to any person having occasion to make examination of them for any lawful purpose is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. The custodian of said records and files may make such reasonable rules with reference to the inspection and examination of them as shall be necessary for the protection of said records and files and to prevent interference with the regular discharge of the duties of such officer. The officer shall prohibit the use of pen and ink in making copies or notes of records and files in his or her office. No books, records, and files shall be removed from the office of the custodian thereof, except by the order of the judge of any court of competent jurisdiction, or in response to a subpoena duces tecum issued therefrom, or for audit purposes conducted pursuant to 1919 PA 71, MCL 21.41 to 21.55, 1929 PA 52, MCL 14.141 to 14.145, or 1968 PA 2, MCL 141.421 to 141.440a, with the permission of the official having custody of the records if the official is given a receipt listing the records being removed.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.492 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 109, Imd. Eff. July 23, 1970 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003

FormerLaw Notes:

See sections 1 and 2 of Act 92 of 1899, being CL 1915, §§ 3449 and 3450; and CL 1929, §§ 2713 and 2714.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1956–2001 · leading case: People v. Jenkins, 624 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Jenkins, 624 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “MCL 750.492; MSA 28.760 provides: Any officer having the custody of any county, city or township records in this state who shall when requested fail or neglect to furnish proper and reasonable facilities for the inspection and examination of the records and files in his office…”

Ravenna Educ. Ass'n v. Ravenna Pub. Schs., 245 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 8× “” MCLA 750.492; MSA 28.760 reads in pertinent part: "Any officer having the custody of any county, city or township records in this state who shall when requested fail or neglect to furnish proper and reasonable facilities for the inspection and examination of the records and…”

Gogebic Cnty. Clerk v. Gogebic Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 301 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “MCL 750.492; MSA 28.760. It is thus clear that, standing alone, these statutes, singly or together, were violated when the Gogebic County Controller secured possession and control over the books and accounts of the board and refused to return them to the county clerk.”

McKim v. Green Oak Twp. Bd., 404 N.W.2d 658 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “65 and MCL 750.492; MSA 28.760 provide authority for the eighteen-hour limitation on removal of township documents.”

Ottawa Cnty. Clerk v. Ottawa Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 378 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “MCL 750.492; MSA 28.760.” 102 Mich App 262 -263.”

Washtenaw Abstract Co. v. Mayer, 79 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 1956). “” CL 1948, § 750.492 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28,760), provides: *232 “See.”

Cnty. Road Ass'n v. State High. Comm'n, 242 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “MCLA 750.492; MSA 28.760 provides that while county, city or township records shall be open to examination by the public, the only individual allowed to remove the books for a full audit is the state Treasurer.”

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.