Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 78.1 (2026)

Short title; corporate existence of villages to continue; village subject to general laws; seal; suit.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

THE HOME RULE VILLAGE ACT

Act 278 of 1909

78.1 Short title; corporate existence of villages to continue; village subject to general laws; seal; suit.

Sec. 1.

(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as "the home rule village act".

(2) All villages within this state incorporated before September 1, 1909 under any general or special act of the legislature shall continue their corporate character, and any general and special charter provisions for the government of such villages shall continue in force until superseded, amended, or repealed pursuant to this act. A village is subject to all general laws of this state.

(3) A village incorporated under this act shall have a seal and may sue and be sued.

History: 1909, Act 278, Eff. Sept. 1, 1909 ;-- CL 1915, 2843 ;-- CL 1929, 1763 ;-- CL 1948, 78.1 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 86, Eff. Oct. 1, 1994

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2021 · leading case: Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “However, because Chelsea existed as a village before 1909, Chelsea continued its corporate character as a village under the General Law Village Act, MCL 61.”

Midland Twp. v. State Boundary Comm'n, 259 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. 1977). · cites it 2× “By amendments in 1913 ( 1913 PA 95 as to villages, 1913 PA 5 as to cities), "and for changing their boundaries" was replaced with "and for revising and amending their charters".”

Prof'l Lawn Care Ass'n v. Vill. of Milford, 909 F.2d 929 (6th Cir. 1990). “See also Michigan’s “Village Home Rule Act,” Mich.Comp.Laws §§ 78.1 et seq. Because the State of Michigan has thus clearly authorized ordinances such as that enacted by the Village of Milford, there is a very real sense in which the Milford ordinance represents “state” action…”

Brimmer v. Vill. of Elk Rapids, 112 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. 1961). · cites it 2× “onstitution of 1908 and particularly article 8, § § 20, 21, thereof providing for enactment by the legislature of a general law for incorporation of villages and the power of village electors to adopt and amend its charter or prior to the legislature’s heeding of that…”

Horace Sheffield III v. Detroit City Clerk (Mich. 2021). “The DCRC is correct on this point, but only because the Legislature used different language in the Home Rule Village Act, MCL 78.1 et seq., and the charter counties act, MCL 45.”

Vill. of Novi v. Sec'y of State, 363 Mich. 152 (Mich. 1961). “PA 1909, No 278, as amended (CL 1948, § 78.1 et seq., as amended [Stat Ann and Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 5.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 78.1(2) — 1 case

Sylvan Twp. v. City of Chelsea, 882 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “However, because Chelsea existed as a village before 1909, Chelsea continued its corporate character as a village under the General Law Village Act, MCL 61.”

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.