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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1615 (2026)

Venue; actions against governmental units.

✓ 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


600.1615 Venue; actions against governmental units.

Sec. 1615.

    Any county in which any governmental unit, including but not limited to a public, municipal, quasi-municipal, or governmental corporation, unincorporated board, public body, or political subdivision, exercises or may exercise its governmental authority is the proper county in which to commence and try actions against such governmental units, except that if the cause of action arose in the county of the principal office of such governmental unit, that county is the proper county in which to commence and try actions against such governmental units.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “However, both of these venue statutes defer to MCL 600.1615, which provides that a governmental unit must be sued in the county in which it exercises or may exercise governmental authority.”
Massey v. Mandell, 614 N.W.2d 70 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “1629(1)(a)(i) provides that venue is proper in the county in which "[t]he defendant resides.”
Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Parole Bd., 532 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “See MCL 600.1615; MSA 27A.1615. In the absence of any clearly applicable venue provision, we find that the general venue statute governing appeals from government agency decisions — although not technically applicable — is in *152 pari materia with the parole appeal statute and…”
Attorney Gen. v. Kent Cnty. Road Comm'n, 459 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Defendant answered plaintiffs complaint and moved to change venue to Kent County pursuant to MCL 600.1615; MSA 27A.1615. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that venue was proper in Ingham County under MCL 600.”
Brown v. Hillsdale Cnty. Road Comm'n, 337 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 600.1615; MSA 27A.1615. Defendant’s motion was initially denied, but, upon motion for rehearing, the trial court granted the motion.”
Hoffman v. Bos, 224 N.W.2d 107 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “Defendant alleged that Barry County, where it exercised its governmental functions, was the proper place for trial pursuant to MCLA 600.1615; MSA 27A.1615, rather than Kent County Circuit Court.”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 573 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 600.1615; M.S.A. § 27A.1615, regarding actions against governmental units; and M.”
Grebner v. Oakland Cnty. Clerk, 560 N.W.2d 351 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “They contend that venue is proper only in Oakland County pursuant to the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.1615; MSA 27A.1615. We disagree. MCL 15.”
Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 836 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “1611, MCL 600.1615, and MCL 600.1629], venue is determined as follows: (a) The county in which a defendant resides, has a place of business, or conducts business, or in which the registered office of a defendant corporation is located, is a proper county in which to commence and…”
Dedes v. Asch, 521 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “[3] Const 1963, art 2, § 8 ("Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record"); art 4, § 2 (senators are to be elected every four years); art 4, § 3 (representatives are to be elected every two years); art 5, § 21 (the…”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “The defendant claimed that venue should have been determined under MCL 600.1615, which applies to actions against a governmental unit.”
Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “1611, and MCL 600.1615 are inapplicable. We also must conclude that MCL 600.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.