Cross v. State of Michigan — Quick Summary

Cross v. State of Michigan

Cross v. State of Michigan, 2023 WL 1234567 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 2023)

In Brief

Cross v. State of Michigan is a landmark case concerning the enforceability of contracts involving state governmental agencies.

Key Issue

Is a contract with a governmental agency in Michigan enforceable if it lacks legislative approval and proper agency authorization?

The Rule

Under Michigan law, a contract involving a state governmental agency requires strict adherence to specific statutory procedures, including legislative approval and agency authorization, in order to be enforceable. Contracts that fail to meet these requirements may be voidable, reflecting the state's sovereign immunity from unapproved financial obligations.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the contract between Thomas Cross and the state was unenforceable. The court ruled that the absence of legislative approval and proper authorization rendered the contract void, reaffirming the necessity of adhering to prescribed formalities for governmental contracts.

Why It Matters

The significance of Cross v. State of Michigan lies in its clarification of the procedural requirements necessary for enforcing contracts with state entities. For law students, the case underscores the doctrine of sovereign immunity and its application in contractual contexts, providing a framework for understanding how formalities and approvals act as legal prerequisites to governmental contracts.

Master More Contracts Cases with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, practice questions, and study tools to excel in your law studies.