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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701 (2026)

Neglect or violation of duty or misconduct; power to punish by fine or imprisonment.

✓ 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


600.1701 Neglect or violation of duty or misconduct; power to punish by fine or imprisonment.

Sec. 1701.

    The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases:

    (a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or impair the respect due to its authority.

    (b) Any breach of the peace, noise, or disturbance directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.

    (c) All attorneys, counselors, clerks, registers, sheriffs, coroners, and all other persons in any manner elected or appointed to perform any judicial or ministerial services, for any misbehavior in their office or trust, or for any willful neglect or violation of duty, for disobedience of any process of the court, or any lawful order of the court, or any lawful order of a judge of the court or of any officer authorized to perform the duties of the judge.

    (d) Parties to actions for putting in fictitious bail or sureties or for any deceit or abuse of the process or proceedings of the court.

    (e) Parties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for the nonpayment of any sum of money which the court has ordered to be paid.

    (f) Parties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for disobeying or refusing to comply with any order of the court for the payment of temporary or permanent alimony or support money or costs made in any action for divorce or separate maintenance.

    (g) Parties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for disobeying any lawful order, decree, or process of the court.

    (h) All persons for assuming to be and acting as officers, attorneys, or counselors of any court without authority; for rescuing any property or persons that are in the custody of an officer by virtue of process issued from that court; for unlawfully detaining any witness or party to an action while he or she is going to, remaining at, or returning from the court where the action is pending for trial, or for any other unlawful interference with or resistance to the process or proceedings in any action.

    (i) All persons who, having been subpoenaed to appear before or attend, refuse or neglect to obey the subpoena, to attend, to be sworn, or when sworn, to answer any legal and proper interrogatory in any of the following circumstances:

    (i) As a witness in any court in this state.

    (ii) Any officer of a court of record who is empowered to receive evidence.

    (iii) Any commissioner appointed by any court of record to take testimony.

    (iv) Any referees or auditors appointed according to the law to hear any cause or matter.

    (v) Any notary public or other person before whom any affidavit or deposition is to be taken.

    (j) Persons summoned as jurors in any court, for improperly conversing with any party to an action which is to be tried in that court, or with any other person in regard to merits of the action, or for receiving communications from any party to the action or any other person in relation to the merits of the action without immediately disclosing the communications to the court.

    (k) All inferior magistrates, officers, and tribunals for disobedience of any lawful order or process of a superior court, or for proceeding in any cause or matter contrary to law after the cause or matter has been removed from their jurisdiction.

    (l) The publication of a false or grossly inaccurate report of the court's proceedings, but a court shall not punish as a contempt the publication of true, full, and fair reports of any trial, argument, proceedings, or decision had in the court.

    (m) All other cases where attachments and proceedings as for contempts have been usually adopted and practiced in courts of record to enforce the civil remedies of any parties or to protect the rights of any party.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 99, Imd. Eff. July 6, 1987 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 326, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 2005

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 132 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 38× “The misconduct that might result in a finding of contempt involves the neglect or violation of a duty under MCL 600.1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.”
Cain v Dep't of Corr., 548 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 11× “" [44] The chief judge conducted a de novo review and held that, under the facts presented by the department, disqualification of Judge Giddings was not required.”
People v. Mysliwiec, 890 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.1701 provides statutory authority for a court to punish a person for contempt.”
In Re Contempt of Dudzinski, 667 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “MCL 600.1701 et seq.; In re Contempt of Auto Club Ins Ass'n, supra at 708-709, 624 N.”
People v. Kammeraad, 858 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “] MCL 600.1701 provides, in relevant part: The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases: (a) Disorderly,…”
Arbor Farms, LLC v. Geostar Corp., 853 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “; MCL 600.1701 et seq. The purpose of this power is to preserve the effectiveness and sustain the power of the courts.”
DeGeorge v. Warheit, 741 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.1701 clearly states that the circuit court has the power to punish, “by fine or imprisonment, or both,” attorneys and others who engage in misconduct by failing to pay “any sum of money which the court has ordered to be paid.”
In Re Contempt of Calcutt, 458 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “See MCL 600.1701 et seq.; MSA 27A.1701 et seq.”
Johnson v. White, 682 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.1701 et seq.; In re Contempt of United Stationers Supply Co.”
In Re Contempt of Steingold, 624 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “III First, appellant argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings because the allegedly contemptuous behavior took place outside the immediate view of the court, or was indirect contempt.”
Matter of Hague, 315 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 2× “Counsel for the commission asserts in his brief that: *559 "MCL 600.1701; MSA 27A.1701 limits the power of courts to punish for contemptuous acts to either imposition of a fine or imprisonment.”
Porter v. Porter, 776 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 600.1701; MCL 600.1715. Thus, all contempt proceedings are referred to as “ ‘quasi-criminal’ ” or “ ‘criminal in nature.”
Show all 132 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(1) — 2 cases
Cain v Dep't of Corr., 548 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1996). “" [44] The chief judge conducted a de novo review and held that, under the facts presented by the department, disqualification of Judge Giddings was not required.”
Glen S Morris v. R Judd Schnoor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(10) — 1 case
Cain v Dep't of Corr., 548 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1996). “" [44] The chief judge conducted a de novo review and held that, under the facts presented by the department, disqualification of Judge Giddings was not required.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(3) — 4 cases
In Re Thurston, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
People v. Shier, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
Maljak v. Murphy, 177 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
In Re Lumumba, 318 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(5) — 10 cases
Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 328 N.W.2d 365 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
Maljak v. Murphy, 188 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 1971).
Watters v. Watters, 314 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
Borden v. Borden, 239 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
ARA Chuckwagon of Detroit, Inc. v. Lobert, 244 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(6) — 1 case
State Bar v. Cramer, 223 N.W.2d 713 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(a) — 13 cases
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “The misconduct that might result in a finding of contempt involves the neglect or violation of a duty under MCL 600.1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.”
People v. Kammeraad, 858 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] MCL 600.1701 provides, in relevant part: The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases: (a) Disorderly,…”
In Re Contempt of Luke Johnson (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
in Re Hon Lisa O Gorcyca (Mich. 2017).
Kevin Williams Jr v. Jamia Jalice Hutson Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(c) — 10 cases
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “The misconduct that might result in a finding of contempt involves the neglect or violation of a duty under MCL 600.1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.”
In Re Contempt of Calcutt, 458 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “See MCL 600.1701 et seq.; MSA 27A.1701 et seq.”
In Re Thurston, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
People v. Shier, 574 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
Hinkle v. Wayne Cnty. Clerk, 631 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(d) — 1 case
Est. of Evelyn Walker v. Silas Salyer (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(e) — 6 cases
DeGeorge v. Warheit, 741 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 600.1701 clearly states that the circuit court has the power to punish, “by fine or imprisonment, or both,” attorneys and others who engage in misconduct by failing to pay “any sum of money which the court has ordered to be paid.”
In Re Contempt of Calcutt, 458 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “See MCL 600.1701 et seq.; MSA 27A.1701 et seq.”
Calcutt v. Harper Grace Hospitals, 184 Mich. App. 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
1618 South Washington LLC v. G & G Capital LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Manitou Boatworks & Eng'g LLC v. Step Solutions LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(f) — 1 case
Rodene Joy Cassidy v. Robert Francis Cassidy Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1701(g) — 39 cases
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “The misconduct that might result in a finding of contempt involves the neglect or violation of a duty under MCL 600.1701 or the failure to perform an act or duty under MCL 600.”
Cain v Dep't of Corr., 548 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1996). “" [44] The chief judge conducted a de novo review and held that, under the facts presented by the department, disqualification of Judge Giddings was not required.”
People v. Mysliwiec, 890 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 600.1701 provides statutory authority for a court to punish a person for contempt.”
Arbor Farms, LLC v. Geostar Corp., 853 N.W.2d 421 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “; MCL 600.1701 et seq. The purpose of this power is to preserve the effectiveness and sustain the power of the courts.”
Kirby v. Michign Hs Athletic Ass'n, 585 N.W.2d 290 (Mich. 1998).
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.