Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629 (2026)

Provisions applicable in action based on tort; grounds for motion for change in venue; determination of venue in product liability action.

✓ 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

600.1629 Provisions applicable in action based on tort; grounds for motion for change in venue; determination of venue in product liability action.

Sec. 1629.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply:

(a) The county in which the original injury occurred and in which either of the following applies is a county in which to file and try the action:

(i) The defendant resides, has a place of business, or conducts business in that county.

(ii) The corporate registered office of a defendant is located in that county.

(b) If a county does not satisfy the criteria under subdivision (a), the county in which the original injury occurred and in which either of the following applies is a county in which to file and try the action:

(i) The plaintiff resides, has a place of business, or conducts business in that county.

(ii) The corporate registered office of a plaintiff is located in that county.

(c) If a county does not satisfy the criteria under subdivision (a) or (b), a county in which both of the following apply is a county in which to file and try the action:

(i) The plaintiff resides, has a place of business, or conducts business in that county, or has its corporate registered office located in that county.

(ii) The defendant resides, has a place of business, or conducts business in that county, or has its corporate registered office located in that county.

(d) If a county does not satisfy the criteria under subdivision (a), (b), or (c), a county that satisfies the criteria under section 1621 or 1627 is a county in which to file and try an action.

(2) Any party may file a motion to change venue based on hardship or inconvenience.

(3) For the purpose of this section only, in a product liability action, a defendant is considered to conduct business in a county in which the defendant's product is sold at retail.

History: Add. 1986, Act 178, Eff. Oct. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Compiler's Notes:

Section 3 of Act 178 of 1986 provides:

“(1) Sections 2925b, 5805, 5838, and 5851 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to causes of action arising before October 1, 1986.

“(2) Sections 1483, 5838a, and 6304 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1986.

“(3) Sections 1629, 1653, 2169, 2591, 2912c, 2912d, 2912e, 6098, 6301, 6303, 6305, 6306, 6307, 6309, and 6311 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after October 1, 1986.

“(4) Sections 1651 and 6013 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended by this amendatory act, shall not apply to cases filed before October 1, 1986.

“(5) Chapter 49 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after January 1, 1987.

“(6) Chapter 49a of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of more than 1 county on or after July 1, 1990 and shall apply to cases filed in judicial circuits which are comprised of 1 county on or after October 1, 1988.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Gross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 528 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 528 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 60× “B In Lorencz , we concluded that MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629 clearly and unambiguously provides that venue is appropriate in all places where *157 a cause of action or a part thereof arises.”

Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLC, 752 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 26× “We stated: Under MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629, venue in a tort action is proper only at the situs of an injury, or in the place or places where the breach of a legal duty occurs that subsequently causes a person to suffer damages.”

Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 483 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 12× “It held that under MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629, venue is properly laid only in the county which is the situs of plaintiff's injuries, or where plaintiff's damages arose, not where all or part of the cause of action occurred.”

Massey v. Mandell, 614 N.W.2d 70 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 14× “The Statute MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629 in full provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply: (a) The county in which the original…”

Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “The road commission argued that, pursuant to MCL 600.1629, venue is proper in a county as provided in MCL 600.”

Ferguson v. Pioneer State Mut. Ins., 731 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “Defendant responded to the complaint and thereafter moved for a change of venue to Kent County, asserting that MCL 600.1629 applied to plaintiffs action and that, under this statute, venue was proper only in Kent *49 County.”

Coleman v. Gurwin, 503 N.W.2d 435 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 4× “Because MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629 *61 provides that venue for a legal malpractice action resides in the county in which the alleged malpractice occurred and not the county in which an underlying legal action would have resided, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.”

Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “Because MCL 600.1629 applies in this case and provides that venue is proper in Macomb County and not Wayne County, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Farm Bureau’s motion to change venue to Macomb County.”

Bass v. Combs, 604 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “This subsection provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply: (a) The county in which the original…”

Yono v. Carlson, 770 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “MCL 600.1629 provides, in relevant part: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply: (a) The county in which the original injury occurred…”

Karpinski v. St John Hosp.-Macomb Ctr. Corp., 606 N.W.2d 45 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Defendants argued that the basis for the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint and the underlying facts revealed in the medical records established that the location of the “original injury,” the determinative factor in establishing venue under MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629, was in…”

Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLC, 735 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs contend that it was not until defendants compiled and sent the erroneous reports to plaintiffs from Deloitte’s Detroit office that the original injury occurred and, therefore, the original injury occurred in Wayne County.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1) — 20 cases

Gross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 528 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 1995). “B In Lorencz , we concluded that MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629 clearly and unambiguously provides that venue is appropriate in all places where *157 a cause of action or a part thereof arises.”

Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLC, 752 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. 2008). “We stated: Under MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629, venue in a tort action is proper only at the situs of an injury, or in the place or places where the breach of a legal duty occurs that subsequently causes a person to suffer damages.”

Ferguson v. Pioneer State Mut. Ins., 731 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Defendant responded to the complaint and thereafter moved for a change of venue to Kent County, asserting that MCL 600.1629 applied to plaintiffs action and that, under this statute, venue was proper only in Kent *49 County.”

Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Because MCL 600.1629 applies in this case and provides that venue is proper in Macomb County and not Wayne County, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Farm Bureau’s motion to change venue to Macomb County.”

Bass v. Combs, 604 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “This subsection provides in relevant part as follows: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply: (a) The county in which the original…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(a) — 17 cases

Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 483 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1992). “It held that under MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629, venue is properly laid only in the county which is the situs of plaintiff's injuries, or where plaintiff's damages arose, not where all or part of the cause of action occurred.”

Massey v. Mandell, 614 N.W.2d 70 (Mich. 2000). “The Statute MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629 in full provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply: (a) The county in which the original…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(a)(i) — 5 cases

Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co v. Bach Servs. & Mfg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Michigan Plumbing Sewer & Drain Cleaning Inc v. Nikolas Hein (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(a)(ii) — 6 cases

Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co v. Bach Servs. & Mfg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(b) — 6 cases

Barnes v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 537 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Brandon Brightwell v. Fifth Third Bank of Michigan, 790 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 2010).

Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co v. Bach Servs. & Mfg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(b)(i) — 3 cases

Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v Nrk Rx, Inc (Mich. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(c) — 4 cases

Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(1)(d) — 5 cases

Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co v. Bach Servs. & Mfg. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Est. of James Armour II v. Rodney W Hall (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(2) — 7 cases

Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The road commission argued that, pursuant to MCL 600.1629, venue is proper in a county as provided in MCL 600.”

Ferguson v. Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co., 731 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(d) — 2 cases

Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(a) — 16 cases

Coleman v. Gurwin, 503 N.W.2d 435 (Mich. 1993). “Because MCL 600.1629; MSA 27A.1629 *61 provides that venue for a legal malpractice action resides in the county in which the alleged malpractice occurred and not the county in which an underlying legal action would have resided, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.”

Taha v. Basha Diagnostics, PC, 737 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(a)(i) — 6 cases

Yono v. Carlson, 770 N.W.2d 400 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 600.1629 provides, in relevant part: (1) Subject to subsection (2), in an action based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, all of the following apply: (a) The county in which the original injury occurred…”

Dimmitt & Owens Fin., Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLC, 735 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiffs contend that it was not until defendants compiled and sent the erroneous reports to plaintiffs from Deloitte’s Detroit office that the original injury occurred and, therefore, the original injury occurred in Wayne County.”

Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(a)(ii) — 3 cases

Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(b) — 6 cases

Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The road commission argued that, pursuant to MCL 600.1629, venue is proper in a county as provided in MCL 600.”

Barnes v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 537 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

Witt v. C J Barrymore's, 491 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

Vermilya v. Carter Crompton Site Dev. Contractors, Inc, 506 N.W.2d 580 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Brandon Brightwell v. Fifth Third Bank of Michigan, 790 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 2010).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(b)(i) — 4 cases

Witt v. C J Barrymore's, 491 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 836 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).

Pietrangelo v. Burns Clinic Med. Ctr., PC, 445 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(c) — 2 cases

Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The road commission argued that, pursuant to MCL 600.1629, venue is proper in a county as provided in MCL 600.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629(l)(d) — 1 case

Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The road commission argued that, pursuant to MCL 600.1629, venue is proper in a county as provided in 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.