Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 45.12 (2026)

Counties bordering on Lake Huron; common jurisdiction.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Revised Statutes of 1846

R.S. of 1846

45.12 Counties bordering on Lake Huron; common jurisdiction.

Sec. 12.

The counties now existing, or which may be hereafter organized, bordering upon the shore of Lake Huron shall have jurisdiction of all offences committed on that part of Lake Huron which lies within the limits of this state; and such offences shall be heard and tried in either of the 2 counties nearest the place where the alleged offence was committed.

History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 13 ;-- CL 1857, 311 ;-- CL 1871, 442 ;-- How. 448 ;-- Am. 1885, Act 98, Imd. Eff. May 14, 1885 ;-- CL 1897, 2450 ;-- CL 1915, 2249 ;-- Am. 1927, Act 157, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 1107 ;-- CL 1948, 45.12

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1999 · leading case: People v. Eason, 458 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Eason, 458 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 4× “See, generally, 2A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed), § 45.12, p 54. [100] See MCL 769.10 et seq.”

Salas v. Clements, 247 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “We believe this literal construction produces an unreasonable, unjust result, a result which is inconsistent with the purpose of the "name and retain" amendment and the dramshop act itself.”

Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 427 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “2A Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed), § 45.12, pp 54-55. We would, therefore, construe this broadening of the statutory language to imply a broadening of the remedy to which it is addressed.”

United States v. Turner, 50 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 45.12 at 61 (1992) (“[A]n interpretation which emasculates a provision of a statute is not preferred.”

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.