Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 451 / Act 551 of 2008
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 451.2503 (2026)

Civil action or administrative proceeding; burden of proof.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT (2002)


Act 551 of 2008


451.2503 Civil action or administrative proceeding; burden of proof.

Sec. 503.

    (1) In a civil action or administrative proceeding under this act, a person claiming an exemption, exception, preemption, or exclusion has the burden to prove the applicability of the exemption, exception, preemption, or exclusion.

    (2) In a criminal proceeding under this act, a person claiming an exemption, exception, preemption, or exclusion has the burden of going forward with evidence of the claim.

History: 2008, Act 551, Eff. Oct. 1, 2009

Compiler's Notes:

    For transfer of securities division of office of finance and insurance regulation from office of finance and insurance regulation to department of licensing and regulatory affairs, see E.R.O. No. 2012-6, compiled at MCL 445.2034.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2023 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” MCL 451.2503. Our Supreme Court interpreted a provision similar to § 503 in the former act12 to mean that once the state establishes a prima facie case of statutory violation, the burden of going forward, i.”
People of Michigan v. Joel Irwing Wilson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” MCL 451.2503. Our Supreme Court interpreted a provision similar to § 503 in the former act12 to mean that once the state establishes a prima facie case of statutory violation, the burden of going forward, i.”
La Developers LLC v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “32 Accordingly, a party ought to have the opportunity to rebut the presumption that a note is a security subject to the Securities Act by demonstrating that issuance of the note did not involve an investment transaction but instead involved an ordinary loan transaction.”
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.