Jordan v. Dep't of Corrections

9 Citing cases

  1. Clonlara, Inc. v. State Board of Education

    442 Mich. 230 (Mich. 1993)   Cited 49 times
    Stating that agency rules have the force and effect of laws

    Similarly, in Farm Bureau, petitioners challenged letters of the Director of the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, establishing new rate schedules as rules on the basis that the changes should have been promulgated under the APA. The Workers' Disability Compensation Act provided that the director, in accordance with the APA, "`may make rules not inconsistent with this act for carrying out the provisions of the act. . . .'"Farm Bureau, n 15 supra, 408 Mich. 156. Some of the other cases relied upon by the dissent where the agency had been granted rule-making authority include Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987); Thompson v Dep't of Corrections, 143 Mich. App. 29; 371 N.W.2d 472 (1985); Schinzel v Dep't of Corrections, 124 Mich. App. 217; 333 N.W.2d 519 (1983), all of which dealt with Department of Corrections actions not taken through APA procedures but that directly affected prisoner's rights. The Director of the Department of Corrections is empowered under MCL 791.206(3); MSA 28.2276(3) to "promulgate further rules with respect to the affairs of the department as the director considers necessary or expedient for the proper administration of this act.

  2. Mich. Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Env't

    SC 165166 (Mich. Jul. 31, 2024)

    " Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich.App. 20, 27; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987). See also Coalition for Human Rights, 431 Mich. at 189 ("The new procedures are not merely mechanical details for the conduct of hearings, but, rather, represent substantial changes in the detailed requirements for the conduct of fair hearings to determine claimants' rights under the Social Welfare Act and applicable federal law."); Thompson v Dep't of Corrections, 143 Mich.App. 29, 32; 371 N.W.2d 472 (1985) ("Of course, the directive could not be considered an 'interpretive statement' if it were inconsistent with the rules or contained provisions which went beyond the scope of the rules.")

  3. Afscme v. Mental Health Dep't

    206 Mich. App. 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    It is seventeen pages long and provides, inter alia, for funding of the group homes, discrimination policies; compliance with DMH rules, guidelines, and directives; submission of financial statements; requirements regarding direct-care worker training and staff levels; requirements regarding patient rights and reporting requirements, and personnel policies and procedures including bonuses and evaluations. The guideline, which incorporates the standard contract by reference, is specifically intended to rescind and replace the former standard contract. Therefore, the guideline and standard contract, which must be read together, are not merely an explanatory guideline that would not be subject to the promulgation procedures of the APA. Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20, 25; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987). Accordingly, while the DMH's decision to contract with private group-home providers is a permissive exercise of its statutory power, the guideline and the standard contract, which is required to be entered into by a private group-home provider and may not be modified, are not exempt from the definition of a rule and must be promulgated as a rule pursuant to the APA. Spear, supra, p 5; Palozolo v Dep't of Social Services, 189 Mich. App. 530; 473 N.W.2d 765 (1991) (adopting Judge SHEPHERD's dissenting opinion in Pyke v Dep't of Social Services, 182 Mich. App. 619, 633-636; 453 N.W.2d 274 (1990).

  4. Attorney General v. Lake States Wood Preserving, Inc.

    199 Mich. App. 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 14 times

    However, if the agency's rule is clear and unambiguous, judicial interpretation is neither required nor permitted, and the court should not look beyond the ordinary meaning of the unambiguous language. Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20, 28; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987); Michigan Mutual Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 146 Mich. App. 475; 382 N.W.2d 169 (1985), aff'd 426 Mich. 346 (1986). If construction is warranted, we must construe the rule according to the common and approved usage of the language, resorting to dictionary definitions where appropriate. See In re Forfeiture of One Front-End Loader, 192 Mich. App. 617; 481 N.W.2d 791 (1992).

  5. Jordan v. Jarvis

    200 Mich. App. 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 31 times

    However, if the agency's rule is clear and unambiguous, judicial interpretation is neither required nor permitted, and the court should not look beyond the ordinary meaning of the language used. Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20, 28; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987). If construction is warranted, we must construe the rule according to the common and approved usage of the language.

  6. Clonlara, Inc. v. State Board of Education

    188 Mich. App. 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    A policy directive is not an interpretive statement if it is inconsistent with the law it is interpreting or contains provisions which exceed the scope of the law which it interprets. Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20, 27; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987). Our Supreme Court in Coalition for Human Rights stressed that the policy behind construing this exception narrowly stems from the principle that the preferred method of policymaking is through the process of promulgation of rules. "When action taken by an agency alters the status quo, those who will be affected by its future application should have the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision making."

  7. Jordan v. Corrections Dep't

    460 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)

    The policy directive and the emergency rule were both in effect at the time of the hearing in February, 1989, and since they are consistent with each other they may be applied together. See Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20, 27; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987). Petitioner also argues that, since he was entitled to possess the confiscated items under former Rule 637, he is entitled to maintain those items regardless of the promulgation of Emergency Rule (4).

  8. Pyke v. Department of Social Services

    182 Mich. App. 619 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 12 times
    Distinguishing Raskin because it was based on express statutory intent that federal payments not affect the receipt of other payments

    Failure to substantially comply with the procedural requirements renders the rule invalid. MCL 24.243; MSA 3.560(143); Jordan v Dep't of Corrections, 165 Mich. App. 20, 24; 418 N.W.2d 914 (1987). "Rule" means an agency regulation, statement, standard, policy, ruling, or instruction of general applicability that implements or applies law enforced or administered by the agency, or that prescribes the organization, procedure, or practice of the agency, including the amendment, suspension, or recision thereof, but does not include the following:

  9. Missouri Soybean v. Missouri Clean Water

    No. WD 59650 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2002)

    Working from the premise that inmates are members of the public, see Thompson v. Dep't of Corr., 371 N.W.2d 472, 473 (Mich.Ct.App. 1985), the Michigan courts have not had many occasions to fully address this exclusion and determine what constitutes "an intergovernmental, interagency, or intra-agency memorandum, directive, or communication." See, e.g., Jordan v. Dep't of Corr., 418 N.W.2d 914, 917 (Mich.Ct.App. 1987) (per curiam); Martin v. Dep't of Corr., 384 N.W.2d 392, 393-95 (Mich. 1986). But, in a recent case, the issue was addressed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which found the exclusion applicable.