- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Public Act 11 of 2008
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Frank Accavitti, Jr. (D) on May 1, 2007, to revise the law that prohibits a bar or restaurant from selling liquor to a person who is intoxicated, so it refers to someone who is "visibly intoxicated." The bill would place in statute current administrative rules on bars and restaurants that prohibit allowing a visibly intoxicated person fro loitering on the premises after being refused with certain narrow exceptions, prohibit a server from being visibly intoxicated, and explicitly prohibit a number of other practices that are generally banned elsewhere in statute (such as allowing illegal gambling).
- Referred to the House Regulatory Reform Committee on May 1, 2007.
- Reported in the House on May 15, 2007, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Referred to the House Regulatory Reform Committee on May 1, 2007.
- Passed 102 to 1 in the House on June 19, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 20, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development and Regulatory Reform Committee on June 20, 2007.
- Reported in the Senate on February 5, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on February 14, 2008. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 14, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development and Regulatory Reform Committee on June 20, 2007.
- Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on February 19, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on February 19, 2008.
- Passed 109 to 0 in the House on February 20, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on February 29, 2008.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: Patty by crazycajun on November 27, 2008when michigan writes a provision into the law that a person denied further alcohol is completely innocent of all crimes he commits while inebreated, and the bar owners and employees are also completely blameless if (heaven forbid) the drunken sod goes out and kills somebody , THEN i'll believe that they care one way or the other.
if a person is responsible for what he or she does when drunk, then let's hold that person, and that person only, responsible. not the state, and certainly not the bar owners or it's employees. they are certainly not to be forced into being "THEIR BROTHER'S KEEPERS" by laws like this, and by state policies like are in place here.
are restaraunts held responsible when a custome keels over with a heart attack or stroke from eating too much?
NO. why not? it's exactly what you are proposing here.
is the tobacco shop responsible when the customer gets cancer?
NO. why not? it's exactly what you are proposing here.
any time you have to write provisions in the law exempting the bar owner from DOING THE RIGHT THING, then you have a BAD LAW.
Reply
so we should let the drunk drive off and cause harm to some innocent person? the law is a good law.
Reply
will be taken over by jenny chavez, oop's I meant hugo granholm, oop's must be jenny the great.
Reply
View Full Conversation
