Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.223 (2026)

Rule-making power.

✓ 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

600.223 Rule-making power.

Sec. 223.

The supreme court has authority to promulgate and amend general rules governing practices and procedure in the supreme court and all other courts of record, including but not limited to authority:

(1) to prescribe the forms of all process to be issued by courts of record,

(2) to prescribe the practices and procedure in the supreme court and other courts of record concerning:

(a) methods of review,

(b) special verdicts,

(d) motions in arrest of judgment,

(e) taxation of costs,

(f) giving notice of special motions and other proceedings,

(g) the staying of proceedings,

(h) hearing of motions,

(i) imposing of terms on motions granted,

(j) discovery procedure, and

(k) other matters at its discretion,

(3) to prescribe in which cases the circuit court may grant orders to stay proceedings in matters pending in the circuit courts or another inferior court and to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which the orders shall be granted and the effect the orders will have,

(4) to abolish, as far as practicable, distinctions between law and equity.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 297, Eff. Apr. 1, 1975

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases, 1965–2013 · 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 2× “”); MCL 600.223(4) (stating that this Court has the authority to promulgate and amend general rules governing practices and procedure in this Court and all other courts of record, including but not limited to the authority “to abolish, as far as practicable, distinctions between…”

People v. Hackett, 365 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “See also MCL 600.223(2); MSA 27A.223(2). It is "a function with which the legislature may not meddle or interfere save as the Court may acquiesce and adopt for retention at judicial will.”

In the Matter of Del Rio, 256 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 2× “There is no Federal constitutional stricture that this Court is aware of which mandates that a state must permit a judge to hold judicial office unhampered by appropriate standards of judicial conduct.”

Mcdougall v. Eliuk, 554 N.W.2d 56 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 600.223; M.S.A. § 27A.223 states that the Supreme Court has authority to promulgate and amend general rules governing practices and procedure in all courts of record.”

Frederick v. Presque Isle Cnty. Circuit Judge, 476 N.W.2d 142 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 2× “[2] Amended by 1974 PA 297 , MCL 600.223; MSA 27A.223. [3] It bears observing that if the State Appellate Defender Office is required to accept one hundred percent of all appellate appointments, its ability to comply with MCL 780.”

Curtis W. Morrison v. Judge Willie Lipscomb & Judge Harold Ryan, Judge Adam Shakoor & Does I Thru V, 877 F.2d 463 (6th Cir. 1989). “The defendants contend that Judge Shakoor had the power to issue the moratorium under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.223 , which empowers the Michigan Supreme Court to issue rules governing practice and procedure in the Michigan courts.”

Teasel v. Dep't of Mental Health, 355 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. 1984). “Const 1963, art 6, § 5; MCL 600.223(4); MSA 27A.223(4); GCR 1963, 12.”

People v. Boatman, 730 N.W.2d 251 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “" MCL 600.223. While we acknowledge that a defendant's status as an habitual offender and the commensurate guidelines enhancement applicable in sentencing may significantly affect the attainment of an understanding plea, we respectfully submit that any expansion of the scope or…”

Hall v. Hanson, 664 N.W.2d 796 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “See Const 1963, art 6, § 5; MCL 600.223(4); MCR 2.101(A). See Christiansen v Gerrish Twp, 239 Mich App 380 , 383 n 2, 385; 608 NW2d 83 (2000) (McNitt Act, 1931 PA 130 , allowed counties to assume control over township roads and other public roads in recorded plats).”

Yakowich v. Dep't of Consum. & Indus. Servs., 608 N.W.2d 110 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “In June 1997, plaintiffs filed this action alleging that, pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 5 and MCL 600.223; MSA 27A.223, the Supreme Court has sole authority to promulgate and amend general rules gov *509 eming practices and procedure in all courts of record and state…”

Hiers v. Detroit Superintendent of Schs., 136 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. 1965). “Unless equity jurisprudence was destroyed by the recent “merger” (see CLS 1961, § 600.223 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.223]; GCR 1963, 12), and I am yet hopeful it was not, this was and yet remains an equity case.”

In Re Hillier Est., 473 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “MCL 600.223; MSA 27A.223. While a court rule cannot enlarge or restrict the jurisdiction of a court, as defined by statute or constitution, it must be determined if a court rule in fact addresses jurisdiction of a court or rather addresses procedure.”

Show all 26 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.223(2) — 1 case

People v. Hackett, 365 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. 1985). “See also MCL 600.223(2); MSA 27A.223(2). It is "a function with which the legislature may not meddle or interfere save as the Court may acquiesce and adopt for retention at judicial will.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.223(2)(a) — 1 case

Abbey Homes of Michigan, Inc. v. Wilcox, 280 N.W.2d 868 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.223(4) — 5 cases

in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). “”); MCL 600.223(4) (stating that this Court has the authority to promulgate and amend general rules governing practices and procedure in this Court and all other courts of record, including but not limited to the authority “to abolish, as far as practicable, distinctions between…”

Teasel v. Dep't of Mental Health, 355 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. 1984). “Const 1963, art 6, § 5; MCL 600.223(4); MSA 27A.223(4); GCR 1963, 12.”

Hall v. Hanson, 664 N.W.2d 796 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Ruggeri Elec. Contracting Co. v. City of Algonac, 492 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

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.