Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1432 (2026)

Mode of administering oaths; commencement of oath; administration of oath or affirmation by electronic or electromagnetic means.

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

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.1432 Mode of administering oaths; commencement of oath; administration of oath or affirmation by electronic or electromagnetic means.

Sec. 1432.

    (1) The usual mode of administering oaths now practiced in this state, by the person who swears holding up the right hand, shall be observed in all cases in which an oath may be administered by law except as otherwise provided by law. The oath shall commence, "You do solemnly swear or affirm".

    (2) If an oath or affirmation is administered by electronic or electromagnetic means of communication pursuant to section 1 of Act No. 189 of the Public Acts of 1966, being section 780.651 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or pursuant to section 1 of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being section 764.1 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the oath or affirmation is considered to be administered before the justice, judge, or district court magistrate.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 45, Imd. Eff. Mar. 29, 1990

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1973–2019 · leading case: Donkers v. Kovach, 745 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donkers v. Kovach, 745 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 62× “MCL 600.1432; MCL 600.1434; People v. Knox, 115 Mich.”
People v. Putman, 870 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Under MCL 600.1432 and MCL 600.1434, witnesses injudicial proceedings must swear or affirm that their testimony will be true.”
People v. Sardy, 884 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “9 at the trial in light of the child’s limited live testimony, where the child promised the trial court to tell the truth without an oath being administered.”
People v. Ramos, 424 N.W.2d 509 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 6× “" [MCL 600.1432; MSA 27A.1432.][ [8] ] [Emphasis supplied.”
Dawson v. Sec'y of State, 205 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “” MCLA 600.1432; MSA 27A.1432. The Supreme Court of Kansas was presented with an almost identical case and reasoned that the statute therein involved was mandatory and not merely directory, and that therefore the failure of the police officer to formally "swear” rendered the…”
People v. Knox, 321 N.W.2d 713 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Defendant first asserts that the revocation of probation must be reversed because the two probation officers who spoke against him were not required to take an oath or make an affirmation before testifying.”
Holland v. Michigan Nat'l Bank-West, 420 N.W.2d 173 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 600.1432; MSA 27A.1432 provides as follows: The usual mode of administrating oaths now practiced in this state, by the person who swears holding up the right hand, shall be observed in all cases in which an oath may be administered by law except in the cases herein otherwise…”
People v. Thompson, 483 N.W.2d 428 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “The Legislature in amending §903 could not have been clearer in revealing its intent that the mere false certification of the driver’s license application constitutes perjury and that an oath is not required.”
Wells v. Jones, 336 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “After the jury began deliberating defendant’s counsel moved for dismissal on the ground that plaintiff failed to raise her hand and swear to *139 either the original or amended complaint as is required by MCL 600.1432; MSA 27A.1432, governing the mode of administration of an…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Earl Cann (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “And to the extent that MRE 603 conflicts with MCL 600.1432, MRE 603 controls. Id. In this case, defendant takes issue with the oath administered to one witness for the prosecution: The Court: Young man, you are here to testify, young man.”
People of Michigan v. Lajuan Joseph Jemison (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “1432(1), which provides: The usual mode of administering oaths now practiced in this state, by the person who swears holding up the right hand, shall be observed in all cases in which an oath may be administered by law except as otherwise provided by law. The oath shall…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1432(1) — 5 cases
Donkers v. Kovach, 745 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 600.1432; MCL 600.1434; People v. Knox, 115 Mich.”
People v. Putman, 870 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Under MCL 600.1432 and MCL 600.1434, witnesses injudicial proceedings must swear or affirm that their testimony will be true.”
People v. Sardy, 884 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “9 at the trial in light of the child’s limited live testimony, where the child promised the trial court to tell the truth without an oath being administered.”
People of Michigan v. Lajuan Joseph Jemison (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “1432(1), which provides: The usual mode of administering oaths now practiced in this state, by the person who swears holding up the right hand, shall be observed in all cases in which an oath may be administered by law except as otherwise provided by law. The oath shall…”
People of Michigan v. Robert Earl Cann (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “And to the extent that MRE 603 conflicts with MCL 600.1432, MRE 603 controls. Id. In this case, defendant takes issue with the oath administered to one witness for the prosecution: The Court: Young man, you are here to testify, young man.”
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.