MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.212 Notice; methods.
Sec. 212.
(1) If the secretary of state is authorized or required to give notice under this act or other law regulating the operation of a vehicle, unless a different method of giving notice is otherwise expressly prescribed, notice shall be given either by personal delivery to the person to be notified or by first-class United States mail addressed to the person at the address shown by the record of the secretary of state. The giving of notice by mail is complete upon the expiration of 5 days after mailing the notice.
(2) Any notice required to be provided under this act may be provided by electronic means.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 398, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 534, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 11, Eff. July 8, 2015 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 32, Eff. June 6, 2016
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 32 of 2016 provides:
"Enacting section 1. R 257.1005 and R 257.1006 of the Michigan Administrative Code are rescinded."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2021 · leading case:
People v. Nunley, 819 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
People v. Nunley, 819 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 17× “” The certificate provides in relevant part: I CERTIFY THAT I AM EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND THAT ON THIS DATE NOTICE OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTED LICENSE WAS GIVEN TO EACH OF THE PERSONS NAMED BELOW BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL AT LANSING,…”
People v. Nunley, 821 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 11× “dozens of names of individuals to whom notice was sent on that particular date, stated: I CERTIFY THAT I AM EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND THAT ON THIS DATE NOTICE OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF SUSPENSION OR RESTRICTED LICENSE WAS GIVEN TO EACH OF THE PERSONS NAMED BELOW BY…”
People v. Acosta-Baustista, 821 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“904(1) provides: A person whose operator’s or chauffeur’s license or registration certificate has been suspended or revoked and who has been notified as provided in [MCL 257.212] of that suspension or revocation, whose application for [a] license has been denied, or who has…”
People of Michigan v. Alejandro Delarosa (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “Defendant’s second argument, that the notice requirement is still in effect for the crime of DWLS because it also appears in MCL 257.212, is equally misplaced. MCL 257.”
People of Michigan v. Henry Reed Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“904(1) and (4); MCL 257.212; M Crim JI 15.21. At trial, the parties stipulated that on August 4, 2015, defendant’s operator’s license was suspended or revoked and that the Secretary of State gave notice of the suspension by first class mail at least five days before the alleged…”
People of Michigan v. Henry Reed Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“904(1) and (4); MCL 257.212; M Crim JI 15.21. At trial, the parties stipulated that on August 4, 2015, defendant’s operator’s license was suspended or revoked and that the Secretary of State gave notice of the suspension by first class mail at least five days before the alleged…”
People of Michigan v. Virdane Labarone Carswell (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“DWLS requires the prosecution prove: “(1) that the defendant’s license was revoked or suspended, (2) that the defendant was notified of the revocation or suspension as provided in MCL 257.212, and (3) that the defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public highway while his or…”
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.