Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 3 / Act 459 of 2012
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.971 (2026)

Short title.

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

INTERSTATE MUTUAL EMERGENCY AID ACT


Act 459 of 2012


3.971 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "interstate mutual emergency aid act".

History: 2012, Act 459, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 2012

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: Dep't of Human Servs. v. Morgan, 763 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Morgan, 763 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. 2009). “Although the court did advise respondent of her right to a trial on the allegations and her right to call witnesses at such a trial, MCL 3.971(B)(3), it suggested that admitting the allegations would merely speed the process and enable the court to provide services to help "get…”
in Re J Thompson Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 3.971; Sanders, 495 Mich at 405 ; AMAC, 269 Mich App at 536 .”
in Re M J Dawkins Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Likewise, in the present case, the trial court’s failure to advise respondents of the consequences of their pleas as set forth in MCL 3.971(B)(4) was plain error, satisfying the first two prongs of the plain-error test.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.971(B)(3) — 1 case
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Morgan, 763 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. 2009). “Although the court did advise respondent of her right to a trial on the allegations and her right to call witnesses at such a trial, MCL 3.971(B)(3), it suggested that admitting the allegations would merely speed the process and enable the court to provide services to help "get…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 3.971(B)(4) — 1 case
in Re M J Dawkins Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Likewise, in the present case, the trial court’s failure to advise respondents of the consequences of their pleas as set forth in MCL 3.971(B)(4) was plain error, satisfying the first two prongs of the plain-error test.”
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.