Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.2101 (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

THE JUDGES RETIREMENT ACT OF 1992

Act 234 of 1992

38.2101 Short title.

Sec. 101.

This act shall be known and may be cited as "the judges retirement act of 1992".

History: 1992, Act 234, Eff. Mar. 31, 1993

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2005 · leading case: Harvey v. State, 664 N.W.2d 767 (Mich. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harvey v. State, 664 N.W.2d 767 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 38.2101 et seq., as amended in the court reorganization act of 1980, 1980 PA 438 through 443.”

Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005). “In 1992, the Michigan legislature enacted the Judges Retirement Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 38.2101 -.2670, which established the judges’ retirement system in its current form.”

Musselman v. Governor, 545 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “[6] Proposal A, a combination of constitutional amendments addressing school finance and tax reform, was approved by the voters in a statewide special election on March 15, 1994.”

Harvey v. State, 650 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Similarly, if a statute criminalizing certain behavior but only if committed by certain citizens was challenged on equal protection grounds, it would not matter that, through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, some targeted citizens engaging in that behavior were never…”

Ernst v. Roberts, 379 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 1983 , challenging the Michigan Judges Retirement Act of 1992, Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.2101 et seq., as violating the United States and Michigan Constitutions and also asserting state law claims for wasting trust and breach of fiduciary duty.”

Ernst v. Roberts, 225 F. Supp. 2d 781 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “§§ 38.2101 et seq., a detailed and comprehensive statute.”

Harvey v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. & Budget, 650 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “[18] Similarly, if a statute criminalizing certain behavior but only if committed by certain citizens was challenged on equal protection grounds, it would not matter that, through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, some targeted citizens engaging in that behavior were…”

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.