Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 14 / Act 232 of 1919
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 14.102 (2026)

Intervention; venue of actions at law, service of process.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

INTERVENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL


Act 232 of 1919


14.102 Intervention; venue of actions at law, service of process.

Sec. 2.

    Any action at law brought by the attorney general in the name of the state or of the people of the state, for the use and benefit thereof, may be begun in the circuit court in and for the county of Ingham, and may be prosecuted to final judgment and satisfaction thereof, with like effect as though the cause of action arose in such county. In any such case process issued out of and under the seal of said court may be served anywhere within the state of Michigan.

History: 1919, Act 232, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 188 ;-- CL 1948, 14.102

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm'n, 563 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm'n, 563 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. 1990). · cites it 2× “( Mich. Comp. Laws §14.102 (1979).) The constitutionality of this provision of the statute has never been authoritatively adjudicated, however.”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v Nrk Rx, Inc, No. 167917 (Mich. June 8, 2026). · cites it 29× “1641(2)—controlled venue in this case rather than the Attorney General venue provisions—MCL 14.102 and MCL 600.1631(a)—because tort allegations were part of the pleadings.”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc, No. 364206 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2024). · cites it 23× “Unlike the majority, which concludes that the tort venue statutes implicitly repealed the AG venue statutes, I would conclude that MCL 14.102 and MCL 600.1631 exist in harmony with MCL 600.”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc, No. 364206 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2024). · cites it 15× “First, the Attorney General contends, Ingham County is the proper venue for suits the Attorney General brings under MCL 14.102 and MCL 600.1631, and second, even if the tort venue statutes, MCL 600.”
Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co, No. 360932 (Mich. Ct. App. July 20, 2023). · cites it 6× “MCL 14.102.” . . . But that statute only provides that “[a]ny action at law brought by the attorney general in the name of the state or of the people of the state, for the -8- use and benefit thereof, may be begun in the circuit court in and for the county of Ingham .”
Attorney Gen. v. Atwell, 229 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “Thirdly, MCLA 14.102; MSA 3.212, provides that an action at law may be brought by the Attorney General in the Circuit Court in and for the County of Ingham.”
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.