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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1711 (2026)

Summary punishment; hearing.

✓ 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


600.1711 Summary punishment; hearing.

Sec. 1711.

    (1) When any contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court may punish it summarily by fine, or imprisonment, or both.

    (2) When any contempt is committed other than in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court may punish it by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other method and opportunity has been given to defend.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Grievance Adm'r v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grievance Adm'r v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 8× “5(c) applies only when an attorney is in a courtroom, the rule would be largely superfluous, and of little practical utility, given that a court's contempt power, enforceable by fine or incarceration pursuant to MCL 600.1711(1), is always available to restore or maintain order…”
In Re Contempt of Henry, 765 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.1711(1); In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 108 ; 667 NW2d 68 (2003); In re Contempt of Scharg, 207 Mich App 438, 439 ; 525 NW2d 479 (1994).”
In re Moroun, 814 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “611; MCL 600.1711; MCL 600.1715. In civil contempt proceedings, a trial court employs its contempt power to coerce compliance with a present or future obligation, including compliance with a court order, to reimburse the complainant for costs incurred as a result of contemptuous…”
Porter v. Porter, 776 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “” Section 7259, which is the predecessor of MCL 600.1711(2), provided that “when the misconduct charged was not committed in the presence of the court, ‘the court shall be satisfied by due proof, by affidavit, of the facts charged, and shall cause a copy of such affidavit to be…”
People v. Kammeraad, 858 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “upreme 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…”
In Re Contempt of Robertson, 531 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “(2) When any contempt is committed other than in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court may punish it by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other method and opportunity has been given to defend.”
In Re Contempt of Steingold, 624 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.1711(2); MSA 27A.1711(2). [2] We agree.”
In Re Contempt of Nathan, 297 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “Her appeal rests upon three bases, only one of which we deem meritorious: that the order of contempt should be reversed because no affidavit was filed in support of the charges as is required by GCR 1963, 760.”
In Re Contempt of Dudzinski, 667 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 600.1711(1); Ahumada, supra at 618 , 564 N.”
Nicholas Somberg v. Karen McDonald, 117 F.4th 375 (6th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “So even if we enjoined the prosecutor from initiating contempt proceedings, nothing about that injunction would stop the court from holding Somberg in contempt after a hearing.”
In Re Contempt of Calcutt, 458 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “In re Albert, 383 Mich 722, 724 ; 179 NW2d 20 (1970); see MCL 600.1711(2); MSA 27A.1711. Regardless, there must be a sufficient foundation of competent evidence, and legitimate inferences therefrom, before a show cause order may issue.”
People v. Bruinsma, 191 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 4× “That is, rather than denying defendant's motion for a continuance, the court may take such action against derelict counsel as may be appropriate.”
Show all 91 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1711(1) — 38 cases
Grievance Adm'r v. Fieger, 719 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. 2006). “5(c) applies only when an attorney is in a courtroom, the rule would be largely superfluous, and of little practical utility, given that a court's contempt power, enforceable by fine or incarceration pursuant to MCL 600.1711(1), is always available to restore or maintain order…”
In Re Contempt of Henry, 765 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 600.1711(1); In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 108 ; 667 NW2d 68 (2003); In re Contempt of Scharg, 207 Mich App 438, 439 ; 525 NW2d 479 (1994).”
People v. Kammeraad, 858 N.W.2d 490 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “upreme 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…”
In Re Contempt of Dudzinski, 667 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 600.1711(1); Ahumada, supra at 618 , 564 N.”
In Re Contempt of Robertson, 531 N.W.2d 763 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “(2) When any contempt is committed other than in the immediate view and presence of the court, the court may punish it by fine or imprisonment, or both, after proof of the facts charged has been made by affidavit or other method and opportunity has been given to defend.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1711(2) — 54 cases
In re Moroun, 814 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “611; MCL 600.1711; MCL 600.1715. In civil contempt proceedings, a trial court employs its contempt power to coerce compliance with a present or future obligation, including compliance with a court order, to reimburse the complainant for costs incurred as a result of contemptuous…”
In Re Contempt of Henry, 765 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 600.1711(1); In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 108 ; 667 NW2d 68 (2003); In re Contempt of Scharg, 207 Mich App 438, 439 ; 525 NW2d 479 (1994).”
Porter v. Porter, 776 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” Section 7259, which is the predecessor of MCL 600.1711(2), provided that “when the misconduct charged was not committed in the presence of the court, ‘the court shall be satisfied by due proof, by affidavit, of the facts charged, and shall cause a copy of such affidavit to be…”
In Re Contempt of Steingold, 624 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 600.1711(2); MSA 27A.1711(2). [2] We agree.”
In Re Contempt of Nathan, 297 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Her appeal rests upon three bases, only one of which we deem meritorious: that the order of contempt should be reversed because no affidavit was filed in support of the charges as is required by GCR 1963, 760.”
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.