Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1825 (2026)
Repealed. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT
Act 284 of 1972
450.1825 Repealed. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989.
Repealed. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989.
Compiler's Notes:
The repealed section pertained to action by shareholder for dissolution and liquidation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Meiselman v. Meiselman, 307 S.E.2d 551 (N.C. 1983).
Meiselman v. Meiselman, 307 S.E.2d 551 (N.C. 1983). “§ 3-413(b)(2) (1975); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 450.1825 (1) (1973); N.”
Madugula v. Taub, 853 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. 2014). “Section 489 is nearly identical in form to its predecessor, former MCL 450.1825 (§ 825), 44 which was considered equitable in nature and was correspondingly tried to a court.”
Salvador v. Connor, 276 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Similarly, the trial court's final order allowing dissolution of the corporation and distribution of corporate assets if the plaintiff was not timely satisfied by the individual defendants was not error, given the broad authority granted to the circuit court under MCL 450.1825;…”
Moore v. Carney, 269 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 450.1825; MSA 21.200(825). Here, the trial court expressly denied dissolution as a proper remedy on the facts, finding it to be too harsh.”
Baks v. Moroun, 576 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 450.1825; M.S.A. § 21.200(825). Instead, when faced with questions of statutory interpretation, this Court must first determine the Legislature's intent by examining the specific language of the statute.”
Barnett v. Int'l Tennis Corp., 263 N.W.2d 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCLA 450.1825; MSA 21.200(825) authorizes the circuit court to adjudge dissolution of a corporation when it is established that the acts of the directors are illegal, fraudulent or willfully unfair and oppressive to the corporation or to the shareholders seeking judicial…”
Caudill v. Eubanks Farms, Inc., 301 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2002). “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 450.1825 (1). Although we are not bound by an unpublished opinion, we agree with this reasoning and adopt it here.”
Miller v. Magline, Inc, 306 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “This does not mean that the trial court cannot *418 find that plaintiffs are entitled to have their stock purchased by the corporation as relief for unfair and oppressive conduct under MCL 450.1825; MSA 21.200(825). 2 The relevant counts of plaintiffs’ complaint requested relief…”
Hunter v. SMS, Inc., 843 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir. 1988). “80 11 In addition to incorporating the allegations of the second amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that they were minority shareholders of the corporation and sought either a dissolution of the corporation or to have their shares purchased at their fair market value pursuant…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1825(1) — 3 cases
Meiselman v. Meiselman, 307 S.E.2d 551 (N.C. 1983). “§ 3-413(b)(2) (1975); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 450.1825 (1) (1973); N.”
Madugula v. Taub, 853 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. 2014). “Section 489 is nearly identical in form to its predecessor, former MCL 450.1825 (§ 825), 44 which was considered equitable in nature and was correspondingly tried to a court.”
Moore v. Carney, 269 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 450.1825; MSA 21.200(825). Here, the trial court expressly denied dissolution as a proper remedy on the facts, finding it to be too harsh.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1825(2)(d) — 1 case
Moore v. Carney, 269 N.W.2d 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 450.1825; MSA 21.200(825). Here, the trial court expressly denied dissolution as a proper remedy on the facts, finding it to be too harsh.”
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.