Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2101 (2026)

Cases tried without jury; objections to testimony or evidence; exclusion of testimony from record; taking of excluded testimony; return of excluded testimony to court of appeals or supreme court.

✓ 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

600.2101 Cases tried without jury; objections to testimony or evidence; exclusion of testimony from record; taking of excluded testimony; return of excluded testimony to court of appeals or supreme court.

Sec. 2101.

In all cases tried without a jury, the court shall rule upon all objections to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony, or evidence offered; and in all cases where the court is of the opinion that any testimony offered is incompetent, irrelevant, or immaterial, the same shall be excluded from the record. If the testimony so offered and excluded is brief, the court may in its discretion permit the same to be taken down by the reporter or recorder separate and apart from the testimony received in the case; and in case of appeal, the excluded testimony may be returned to the appellate court under the certificate of the trial court. If the excluded testimony is not taken and returned to the court of appeals or supreme court on appeal, and upon the hearing of the appeal, the court of appeals or supreme court shall be of the opinion that the testimony is competent and material, it may order that the testimony be taken by deposition or under a reference, and returned to the court.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 308, Eff. Jan. 1, 1987

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1964–2012 · leading case: People v. Bragg, 824 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Bragg, 824 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “2156, the successor of this state’s original 1846 statute, is found among the evidence provisions of chapter 21 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.2101 et seq. It is flanked by statutes excusing a witness from giving an answer that may incriminate him criminally, MCL 600.”

Ryan v. Alexy, 127 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1964). · cites it 2× “See CLS 1961, § 600.2101 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2101).”

Schwartz v. Davis Mfg. Co., 189 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “” Despite the permissive wording of the court rule and its corresponding statute, MCLA § 600.2101 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”

Kaczynski v. Anderson, 737 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “="2077330"> 274 Mich App 49 ; 731 NW2d 442 (2007), vacated in part 274 Mich App 801 (2007), and White v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, 274 Mich App 801 (2007), concerning whether an affidavit of merit that is notarized by an out-of-state notary public is invalid if it is…”

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.