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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1641 (2026)

Venue; joinder of causes of action; separation.

✓ 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


600.1641 Venue; joinder of causes of action; separation.

Sec. 1641.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any county in which either cause of action, if sued upon separately, could have been commenced and tried, subject to separation and change as provided by court rule.

    (2) If more than 1 cause of action is pleaded in the complaint or added by amendment at any time during the action and 1 of the causes of action is based on tort or another legal theory seeking damages for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, venue shall be determined under the rules applicable to actions in tort as provided in section 1629.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 161, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 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 19× “The trial court denied the motion to change venue and invited appellate review.”
Provider Creditors Comm. v. United Am. Health Care Corp., 738 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 11× “] Although personal injury as defined in MCL 600.”
Gross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 528 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 6× “(C) If none of the defendants meets any of the criteria in subdivision (B), the county in which any plaintiff resides. [8] Gross and McLain also argue four other independent bases for establishing venue in Wayne County.”
People v. Williams, 825 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “In Colucci v McMillin, 256 Mich App 88 , 97 n 6; 662 NW2d 87 (2003), this Court considered whether it was bound to follow a prior decision of this Court that interpreted a pre-amendment version of MCL 600.1641: We recognize that, pursuant to MCR 7.”
Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “In light of the inclusion of these two causes of action, it is necessary to examine the venue provision concerning joinder, MCL 600.1641, which provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any…”
Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “In light of the inclusion of these two causes of action, it is necessary to examine the venue provision concerning joinder, MCL 600.1641, which provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any…”
Attorney Gen. v. Diamond Mortg. Co., 327 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. 1982). “MCL 600.1641; MSA 27A.1641. Defendants agree that if MCL 445.”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v Nrk Rx, Inc (Mich. 2026). · cites it 83× “1631 exist in harmony with MCL 600.1641 and MCL 600.1629, so that a party may properly establish venue under the AG venue statutes, MCL 14.”
Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 836 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “1641 provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any county in which either cause of action, if sued upon separately, could have been commenced and tried, subject to separation and change as…”
Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 21× “In cases involving multiple causes of action, courts look to MCL 600.1641 to determine venue. Shiroka v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 276 Mich App 98, 104 ; 740 NW2d 316 (2007).”
Hoffman v. Bos, 224 N.W.2d 107 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 3× “Relying upon GCR 1963, 406(2) and MCLA 600.1641; MSA 27A.1641, the trial court exercised its discretion to deny defendant’s motion for change of venue.”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Nrk Rx Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 19× “1631, and second, even if the tort venue statutes, MCL 600.1641 and MCL 600.1629, control, Ingham County still is the proper venue because the original injury occurred in Ingham County.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1641(1) — 5 cases
Provider Creditors Comm. v. United Am. Health Care Corp., 738 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “] Although personal injury as defined in MCL 600.”
Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court denied the motion to change venue and invited appellate review.”
Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 836 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “1641 provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any county in which either cause of action, if sued upon separately, could have been commenced and tried, subject to separation and change as…”
Angelucci v. Dart Props. Inc., 828 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “In cases involving multiple causes of action, courts look to MCL 600.1641 to determine venue. Shiroka v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 276 Mich App 98, 104 ; 740 NW2d 316 (2007).”
Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v Nrk Rx, Inc (Mich. 2026). “1631 exist in harmony with MCL 600.1641 and MCL 600.1629, so that a party may properly establish venue under the AG venue statutes, MCL 14.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1641(2) — 10 cases
Colucci v. McMillin, 662 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court denied the motion to change venue and invited appellate review.”
Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “In light of the inclusion of these two causes of action, it is necessary to examine the venue provision concerning joinder, MCL 600.1641, which provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any…”
Provider Creditors Comm. v. United Am. Health Care Corp., 738 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “] Although personal injury as defined in MCL 600.”
People v. Williams, 825 N.W.2d 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “In Colucci v McMillin, 256 Mich App 88 , 97 n 6; 662 NW2d 87 (2003), this Court considered whether it was bound to follow a prior decision of this Court that interpreted a pre-amendment version of MCL 600.1641: We recognize that, pursuant to MCR 7.”
Shiroka v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co., 740 N.W.2d 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “In light of the inclusion of these two causes of action, it is necessary to examine the venue provision concerning joinder, MCL 600.1641, which provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if causes of action are joined, whether properly or not, venue is proper in any…”
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.