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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2160 (2026)

Repealed. 1967, Act 263, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967.

✓ 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


600.2160 Repealed. 1967, Act 263, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967.

    Repealed. 1967, Act 263, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section provided for admissibility of testimony of opposite party on matters equally within knowledge of deceased or mentally incompetent person.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1964–1999 · leading case: Sherberneau v. Metro. Life Ins., 205 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sherberneau v. Metro. Life Ins., 205 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “This testimony was objected to as violative of the Dead Man’s Statute, MCLA 600.2160; MSA 27A.2160. The objection was sustained and the testimony was not received.”
Brooks v. Haack, 132 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. 1965). “914), now CLS 1961, § 600.2160 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2160).”
Mitrage v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 129 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. 1964). · cites it 3× “Stevens’ assignment to her mother of her interest in her father’s estate, nor her written declinature of any interest therein, removes the bar of the statute, since CLS 1961, § 600.2160 subd (4) (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Seeber v. Citizens State Bank of Sturgis, 151 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “" CLS 1961, § 600.2160 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2160[1]).”
James v. Dixon, 291 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being Section 600.2160 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, was repealed and Section 600.”
Bonkowski v. Arlan's Dep't Store, 162 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “Since the statute, regulating the admissibility of evidence at trial, does not affect the substantive cause of action, the new trial will be governed by the new statute, PA 1961, No 236, § 2166, as added by PA 1967, No 263 (MOLA .”
McDaniels v. Schroeder, 157 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “As noted above, plaintiff is barred from testifying by the “dead man’s act”, CLS 1961, § 600.2160 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2160).”
Koenig v. Lake Shore, Inc., 136 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. 1965). “Defendant claims, on the other hand, that by interrogating plaintiff on deposition before trial regarding matters equally within the knowledge of defendant’s deceased president, it did not thereby waive its right to object at the trial in the event plaintiff offered such…”
Grondziak v. Grondziak, 162 N.W.2d 354 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “In an attmept to do that, defendants sought to introduce testimony pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed, but the testimony was excluded by the court under CLS 1961, § 600.2160 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2160), colloquially known as the dead-man’s…”
Skiff v. Dickens, 196 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “2166, which repealed MCLA 600.2160; MSA 27A.2160. The previous statute provided: “(1) When an action or proceeding is prosecuted or defended by the heirs, assigns, devisees, legatees, or personal representatives of a deceased person, the opposite party, if examined as a witness…”
Hoskey v. Hoskey, 151 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “Chamski on the basis his testimony was barred by PA 1961, No 236, § 2160, CLS 1961, § 600.2160 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2160), commonly referred to as the “dead man’s” statute.”
Wittbrot v. Anderson, 262 F. Supp. 10 (W.D. Mich. 1966). “Laws 1948, § 600.2160, Pub.Acts 1961, No. 236] to testify at the trial concerning the same matter.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2160(1) — 1 case
Skuta v. Hribek, 143 N.W.2d 157 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2160(2) — 1 case
Skuta v. Hribek, 143 N.W.2d 157 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2160(3) — 1 case
Mitrage v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 129 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. 1964). “Stevens’ assignment to her mother of her interest in her father’s estate, nor her written declinature of any interest therein, removes the bar of the statute, since CLS 1961, § 600.2160 subd (4) (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
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.