Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26340 (2026)

Jurisdiction over claim; validity of proceedings or determinations; commencement of action.

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

THE MICHIGAN BIOLOGIC PRODUCTS INSTITUTE TRANSFER ACT


Act 522 of 1996


333.26340 Jurisdiction over claim; validity of proceedings or determinations; commencement of action.

Sec. 10.

    (1)  The court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction over a claim asserted against the state and arising out of or related to this act.

    (2) The validity of the proceedings of, or the determinations made by, the state administrative board or the commission under this act are conclusive if not challenged by filing suit with the court of claims within 60 days after the action that is the subject of the suit is taken.

    (3) A person shall not bring or maintain an action related to a product manufactured by the institute or to recover damages for injuries to persons unless the action is commenced within 6 months after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims. A claim subject to this subsection accrues at the time the plaintiff or someone through whom the plaintiff claims discovered or should have discovered through reasonable diligence the existence of the claim or the injury that is the basis for the claim.

History: 1996, Act 522, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 1997

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2024–2024 · leading case: Brian McLain v. Richard Lobert (Mich. 2024).
Brian McLain v. Richard Lobert (Mich. 2024). · cites it 3× “5855 (fraudulently concealed claims); MCL 333.26340(3) (Michigan Biologic Products Institute Transfer Act); MCL 450.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26340(3) — 1 case
Brian McLain v. Richard Lobert (Mich. 2024). “5855 (fraudulently concealed claims); MCL 333.26340(3) (Michigan Biologic Products Institute Transfer Act); MCL 450.”
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.