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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2161 (2026)

Cross examination of opposite party or agent.

✓ 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


600.2161 Cross examination of opposite party or agent.

Sec. 2161.

    In any suit or proceeding in any court in this state, either party, if he shall call as a witness in his behalf, the opposite party, employee or agent of said opposite party, or any person who at the time of the happening of the transaction out of which such suit or proceeding grew, was an employee or agent of the opposite party, shall have the right to cross-examine such witness the same as if he were called by the opposite party; and the answers of such witness shall not interfere with the right of such party to introduce evidence upon any issue involved in such suit or proceeding, and the party so calling and examining such witness shall not be bound to accept such answers as true.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases, 1965–2005 · leading case: People v. Petrella, 380 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Petrella, 380 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 4× “Therefore, we do not think defendant Petrella was prejudiced in any way by the trial court's instruction on "mental anguish." [25] VIII The final issue for our consideration, presented only in People v Simpson, concerns the competency of defendant Simpson's wife to testify under…”
Wiley v. Henry Ford Cottage Hosp., 668 N.W.2d 402 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 600.2161. On the basis of Rice and Biecker's testimony, plaintiff established that the standard of care in transferring a patient, such as plaintiff, includes several factors: that the nurse assess his ability and the ability of the patient, as well as the surrounding…”
Jackovich v. Gen. Adjustment Bureau, Inc, 326 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “In any suit or proceeding in any court in this state, either party, if he shall call as a witness in his behalf, the opposite party, employee or agent of said opposite party, or any person who at the time of the happening of the transaction out of which such suit or proceeding…”
Strach v. St. John Hosp. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “The adverse party statute, MCL 600.2161; MSA 27A.2161, provides: In any suit or proceeding in any court in this state, either party, if he shall call as a witness in his behalf, the opposite party .”
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc, 697 N.W.2d 913 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Applied cites MCL 600.2161, the adverse witness statute, which provides: In any suit or proceeding in any court in this state, either party, if he shall call as a witness in his behalf, the opposite party, employee or agent of said opposite party, or any person who at the time…”
Johnson v. Corbet, 377 N.W.2d 713 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “See MRE 607(2)(B) and MCL 600.2161; MSA 27A.2161. Although named a defendant in the suit, a default had been entered against Corbet prior to the commencement of trial.”
Solomon v. Shuell, 457 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 2× “[11] Nixon was called by plaintiff as an adverse witness, MCL 600.2161; MSA 27A.2161. [12] Ante, p 136.”
Ruhala v. Roby, 150 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. 1967). · cites it 3× “[4] CLS 1961, § 600.2161 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2161).”
Heyler v. Dixon, 408 N.W.2d 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED (1) IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO CALL LARRY DIXON AS A WITNESS ON PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF AND (2) IN ALLOWING INTO EVIDENCE A STATEMENT WRITTEN BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF AND SIGNED BY LARRY DIXON. Without objection from counsel for defendant *139 Stevens,…”
Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp., 443 N.W.2d 354 (Mich. 1989). “Lawson was called to the stand by the attorney for the defendant hospital pursuant to MCL 600.2161; MSA 27A.2161, and was cross-examined as an adverse witness.”
Thompson v. Essex Wire Co., 183 N.W.2d 818 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 4× “, as agents or employees of the opposite party pursuant to MCLA § 600.2161 (Stat Arm 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Sullivan v. Russell, 338 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.2161; MSA 27A.2161. Defendant saw plaintiff in his office on March 11, 1974, and "smoothed off some rough edges” on her upper central and lateral incisors (Nos.”
Show all 59 citing cases →
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.