Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1627 (2026)
Venue; county where cause of action arose; exceptions; suits against surety of public officers or their appointees.
✓ 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
600.1627 Venue; county where cause of action arose; exceptions; suits against surety of public officers or their appointees.
Sec. 1627.
Except for actions founded on contract and actions provided for in sections 1605, 1611, 1615, and 1629, the county in which all or a part of the cause of action arose is a proper county in which to commence and try the action. Suits against the surety of a public officer or his or her appointees are not excepted from the application of this section.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Gross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 528 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 1995).
Gross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 528 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 1995). “[6] The former tort venue statute, MCL 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627, allowed a plaintiff to file a tort claim in the "county in which all or a part of the cause of action arose.”
Anthony v. Forgrave, 337 N.W.2d 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627. Finding that venue had been improperly laid in Wayne County, the court granted the motion of defendants Dr.”
Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “1621 and MCL 600.1627. However, both of these venue statutes defer to MCL 600.”
Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 483 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1992). “The first draft of HB 5150 amended MCL 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627, the former tort venue statute, by eliminating the language allowing a plaintiff to file a tort claim in the "county in which all or a part of the cause of action arose.”
Massey v. Mandell, 614 N.W.2d 70 (Mich. 2000). “§ 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627 and Wayne County satisfies the venue criteria of §§ 1621 and 1627, venue in Wayne County was proper.”
Ferguson v. Pioneer State Mut. Ins., 731 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “During its ruling from the bench, the trial court mistakenly referred to MCL 600.1627 instead of MCL 600.1621. The parties agree that the trial court’s reference to MCL 600.”
Harrison Cmty. Hosp. v. Blustein, 255 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “1 Plaintiff contended that venue was properly laid under MCLA 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627 and cited Davis v Frankenlust Twp, 118 Mich 494 ; 76 NW 1045 (1898).”
Catanese v. Heggen, 320 N.W.2d 351 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “*303 MCL 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627 provides that venue is properly laid in that county in which "all or a part of the cause of action arose".”
Ferguson v. Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co., 731 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “[3] During its ruling from the bench, the trial court mistakenly referred to MCL 600.1627 instead of MCL 600.1621. The parties agree that the trial court's reference to MCL 600.”
Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 466 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “Hawkins in 32A MCLA in the Practice Commentary to MCL 600.1627, pp 406-407, regarding a later venue statute which contained the statutory phrase at issue in the instant case: Under a former statute, actions against public officers had to be brought in the county where the cause…”
Pulcini v. Doctor's Clinic, PC, 404 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Under MCL 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627, venue would unquestionably lie only in Macomb County.”
Chiarini v. John Deere Co., 458 N.W.2d 668 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “We reverse and remand for a change of venue to either Macomb County, where the cause of action arose, MCL 600.1627; MSA 27A.1627, or Ingham County, where defendant’s registered agent is located, MCL 600.”
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.