Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 257 / Act 300 of 1949
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.252 (2026)

Reports of stolen and recovered vehicles.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE


Act 300 of 1949


257.252 Reports of stolen and recovered vehicles.

Sec. 252.

    A police agency, upon receiving reliable information that any vehicle registered under this act has been stolen, shall immediately report the theft through the law enforcement information network. Upon receiving information that a vehicle previously reported as stolen has been recovered, the police agency shall immediately report the fact of the recovery through the law enforcement information network.

History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 99, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1966, Act 157, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1966 ;-- Am. 1968, Act 170, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 350, Eff. Mar. 1, 1973 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 249, Imd. Eff. July 28, 1980

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Nickell v. Lambrecht, 185 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nickell v. Lambrecht, 185 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “The plaintiff relies on the provisions of MCLA § 257.252 *202 (e) (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 9.”
Sec. Ins. v. Daniels, 245 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Consequently, we must determine whether the Sottiles complied with the provision of MCLA 257.252; MSA 9.1952, which governs abandoned vehicles.”
People v. Morgan Clark, 243 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “MCLA 257.252; MSA 9.1952, allowing impoundment of cars abandoned for 48 hours, is not applicable.”
Willis v. Ed Hudson Towing, Inc, 311 N.W.2d 776 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “On appeal, the defendant first argues that the trial court erred in finding that defendant converted plaintiff’s vehicle since its acts were privileged under either the common-law or the statutory provisions of MCL 257.252; MSA 9.1952. However, a reading of defendant’s arguments…”
Mercer v. City of Lansing, 733 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “According to plaintiff, because defendants failed to comply with the requirements of MCL 257.252 et seq., he was unable to dispose of unclaimed vehicles, which accumulated on his property.”
City of Detroit v. Nationwide Recovery Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “MCL 257.252. An agency is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of any record it enters into LEIN.”
Kennedy v. Jackson (E.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 3× “) In that complaint, Kennedy stated that Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.252(a) prevented him from filing a petition due to his inability to pay the associated fees.”
Brite Fin. Servs., LLC v. Bobby's Towing Serv., LLC (E.D. Mich. 2020). “Laws §§ 257.252 (a), (d), are facially unconstitutional.”
Robertson v. Breakthrough Towing, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2022). “§ 257.252 violated the Constitution. Id. at 14.”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. J & T Towing (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “252a(6); see MCL 257.252(14). See also Noll, 317 Mich App at 510 (explaining that we are required to enforce statutory language that “is clear and ambiguous .”
Mercer v. City of Lansing, 733 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “According to plaintiff, because defendants failed to comply with the requirements of MCL 257.252 et seq., he was unable to dispose of unclaimed vehicles, which accumulated on his property.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.252(14) — 1 case
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. J & T Towing (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “252a(6); see MCL 257.252(14). See also Noll, 317 Mich App at 510 (explaining that we are required to enforce statutory language that “is clear and ambiguous .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.252(a) — 1 case
Kennedy v. Jackson (E.D. Mich. 2025). “) In that complaint, Kennedy stated that Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.252(a) prevented him from filing a petition due to his inability to pay the associated fees.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.252(e) — 1 case
Nickell v. Lambrecht, 185 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “The plaintiff relies on the provisions of MCLA § 257.252 *202 (e) (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 9.”
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.