THE STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT ACT
Act 253 of 1935
800.402 Forwarding information to attorney general.
Sec. 2.
The director shall forward to the attorney general a report on each prisoner containing a completed form under section 1b together with all other information available on the assets of the prisoner and an estimate of the total cost of care for that prisoner.
History: 1935, Act 253, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1935 ;-- CL 1948, 800.402 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 282, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1984
Constitutionality Notes:
The Prison Reimbursement Act was intended to apply to all inmates of the state penal system and was not limited to the inmates of the three penal institutions named in the act and in existence at the time of its passage; nor is the act violative of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. State Treasurer v Wilson, 423 Mich 138; 347 NW2d 770 (1985).
Notes of Decisions
State Treasurer v. Wilson, 377 N.W.2d 703 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 4× “[MCL 800.402; MSA 28.1702.] Section 4 outlines procedures for appointment of a guardian and grants discretion to the trial courts to order payment to the state, directing its application to residents of "any of the aforesaid state penal institutions.”
State Treasurer v. Schuster, 572 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 2× “§ 800.402; M.S.A. § 28.1702. The Attorney General must seek reimbursement from a prisoner who has sufficient assets to permit recovery of the statutorily prescribed portion of the prisoner's cost of care.”
State Treasurer v. Wilson, 347 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“1705, however, refers to "any state penal institution”. Upon reading the act as a whole, we find that it clearly limits its effects to the three penal institutions it mentions, which were the only state penal institutions in operation at the time of the statute’s enactment.”
State Treasurer v. Wigger (W.D. Mich. 2020).
“Laws § 800.402 . Next, the attorney general must determine whether there is “good cause” to believe that a prisoner has sufficient assets to recover.”
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.