Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781 (2026)

Limitations.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT

Act 274 of 1984

445.781 Limitations.

Sec. 11.

(1) An action under section 7 or 9 is barred if not commenced within 4 years after the claim of relief or cause of action accrues.

(2) An action to recover damages under section 8 is barred if not commenced within 4 years after the claim for relief or cause of action accrues, or within 1 year after the conclusion of any timely action brought by the state under section 7, 8(1), or 9 which is based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in the action for damages, whichever is later.

History: 1984, Act 274, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1995–2017 · leading case: Z Tech. Corp. v. The Lubrizol Corp., 753 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Z Tech. Corp. v. The Lubrizol Corp., 753 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “”); Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.781 , 445.784(2) (2009) (“It is the intent of the legislature that in construing all sections of this act, the courts shall give due deference to interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable antitrust statutes, including, without…”

Supreme Auto Transp. LLC v. Arcelor Mittal, 238 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Ill. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781 , Like the fifteen new named plaintiffs, Supreme Auto’s amended allegations do not warrant tolling and are thus untimely.”

In re Nexium, 968 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781 (2) ("An action to recover damages under [the provision of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act allowing injured parties to bring actions for relief] is barred if not commenced within 4 years after the claim for relief or cause of action accrues .”

Dxs, Inc., a Michigan Corp., F/k/a Flint X-Ray, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., a Foreign Corp., 100 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 1996). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781 . An antitrust cause of action accrues and the limitation period commences each time a defendant commits an act that injures the plaintiffs business.”

In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consum. Litig., 172 F. Supp. 3d 724 (D.N.J. 2016). “Counts Six and Seven charge Defendants with violating two provisions of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.772 (Count Six), ECF No.”

Emerson Elec. Co. v. Le Carbone Lorraine, SA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 437 (D.N.J. 2007). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778 (2). As under federal law, actions for damages under this provision have a four-year statute of limitations.”

El Aguila Food Prods., Inc. v. Gruma Corp., 301 F. Supp. 2d 612 (S.D. Tex. 2003). “1 (Deering 2002); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781 (2003) and Ariz.”

State of Mich. Ex Rel. Kelley v. McDonald Dairy Co., 905 F. Supp. 447 (W.D. Mich. 1995). “§ 445.781. Plaintiffs allege that the price-fixing conspiracy ran from the mid-1980s through “at least the 1989-90 school year.”

Manitou North Am. Inc v. McCormick Int'l LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Next, with respect to whether the MARA counterclaim should have been dismissed on the basis of the four-year statute of limitations governing the action, MCL 445.781(2), which had indeed expired by the time McCormick amended its counterclaim in September 2010 to add the MARA…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781(2) — 1 case

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.