Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 780 / Act 93 of 2013
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.997 (2026)

Duty of compliance with approved plan.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN INDIGENT DEFENSE COMMISSION ACT


Act 93 of 2013


780.997 Duty of compliance with approved plan.

Sec. 17.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), every local unit of government that is part of an indigent criminal defense system shall comply with an approved plan under this act.

    (2) A system's duty of compliance with 1 or more standards within the plan under subsection (1) is contingent upon receipt of a grant in the amount sufficient to cover that particular standard or standards contained in the plan and cost analysis approved by the MIDC.

    (3) The MIDC may proceed under section 15 if an indigent criminal defense system breaches its duty of compliance under subsection (1).

History: 2013, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 1, 2013 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 443, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 2017 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 214, Eff. Dec. 23, 2018

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2018–2018 · leading case: Cnty. of Oakland v. State of Michigan, 926 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cnty. of Oakland v. State of Michigan, 926 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 780.997(1). See also MCL 780.995 (providing procedures for resolving a dispute between the MIDC and an ICDS).”
Cnty. of Oakland v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 780.997(1). See also MCL 780.995 (providing procedures for resolving a dispute between the MIDC and an ICDS).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.997(1) — 2 cases
Cnty. of Oakland v. State of Michigan, 926 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 780.997(1). See also MCL 780.995 (providing procedures for resolving a dispute between the MIDC and an ICDS).”
Cnty. of Oakland v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “MCL 780.997(1). See also MCL 780.995 (providing procedures for resolving a dispute between the MIDC and an ICDS).”
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.