Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 274 of 1984
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.784 (2026)

Incorporation of provisions similar to uniform state antitrust act; application and construction; interpretations by federal court.

✓ 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


445.784 Incorporation of provisions similar to uniform state antitrust act; application and construction; interpretations by federal court.

Sec. 14.

    (1) To the extent that this act incorporates provisions of or provisions similar to the uniform state antitrust act, this act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among those states that enact similar provisions.

    (2) 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 limitation, the doctrine of per se violations and the rule of reason.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “MCL 445.784(2) instructs courts to look to federal interpretation of comparable statutes: It is the intent of the [LJegislature that in construing all sections of this act, the courts shall give due deference to interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable antitrust…”
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC, 912 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “at 874 (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.784 (2) ). The Court clarified that Coates v.”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “784(2) of the Act which expressly provides that "[i]t 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 limitation,…”
Z Tech. Corp. v. The Lubrizol Corp., 753 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2014). “Michigan Antitrust Claims The statute of limitations on the Michigan antitrust claims is also four years and forty days, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.781 , and Michigan has expressly indicated that “in construing all sections of this act, the courts shall give due deference to…”
In Re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “'s antitrust laws); Mich. Comp.Laws § 445.784 (1999) (expressly directing the courts to give "due deference to interpretations given by the federal courts to *693 comparable antitrust statutes, including, without limitation, the doctrine of per se violations” in construing the…”
Little Caesar Enter., Inc. v. Smith, 895 F. Supp. 884 (E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to MCLA § 445.784(2), in construing Michigan antitrust law, “the courts shall give due deference to interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable antitrust statutes.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 592 F. Supp. 2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “”); Mich. Comp. Laws 445.784(2) (2008) (“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.”
Baum Rsch. & Dev. Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “784(2): 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 limitation, the doctrine of per se violations and the…”
Elias v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 581 F. App'x 461 (6th Cir. 2014). “”); see also Mercy Mem. Hosp. v. Porter, No. 212223, 1999 WL 33326821 , at *3 (Mich.”
DXS, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 991 F. Supp. 859 (E.D. Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “784(2) (“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----”) For the reasons stated above in the analysis of Plaintiff’s •…”
Aurora Cable Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jones Intercable, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 600 (W.D. Mich. 1989). “§ 445.784(2) provides that courts should construe MARA as federal courts construe federal antitrust laws.”
In Re Baseball Bat Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 1249), 75 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Kan. 1999). “See Mich.Comp.Laws 445.784(2) (in construing Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, courts shall give "due deference to interpretations given by federal courts to comparable antitrust statutes.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.784(2) — 10 cases
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016). “MCL 445.784(2) instructs courts to look to federal interpretation of comparable statutes: It is the intent of the [LJegislature that in construing all sections of this act, the courts shall give due deference to interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable antitrust…”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “784(2) of the Act which expressly provides that "[i]t 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 limitation,…”
Little Caesar Enter., Inc. v. Smith, 895 F. Supp. 884 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “Pursuant to MCLA § 445.784(2), in construing Michigan antitrust law, “the courts shall give due deference to interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable antitrust statutes.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 592 F. Supp. 2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “”); Mich. Comp. Laws 445.784(2) (2008) (“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.”
Baum Rsch. & Dev. Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “784(2): 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 limitation, the doctrine of per se violations and the…”
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.