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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2301 (2026)

Amendment of process or pleadings before judgment.

✓ 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


600.2301 Amendment of process or pleadings before judgment.

Sec. 2301.

    The court in which any action or proceeding is pending, has power to amend any process, pleading or proceeding in such action or proceeding, either in form or substance, for the furtherance of justice, on such terms as are just, at any time before judgment rendered therein. The court at every stage of the action or proceeding shall disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 121 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp., 803 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 92× “We granted leave and directed the parties to address the following issues: “(1) whether the plaintiff may amend his affidavits of merit in light of Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156 [ 772 NW2d 272 ] (2009), and/or MCL 600.2301, and (2) whether the recent amendment of MCR 2.”
Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich. 68 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 98× “, dissenting), reversed, holding that the trial court had discretion under MCL 600.2301 to allow Tyra to amend the filing date of her complaint.”
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 48× “In this medical malpractice action, we must decide whether a plaintiff is entitled to amend an original notice of intent (NOI) when adding a nonparty defendant to a pending action pursuant to this Court’s holding in Bush v Shabahang1 and MCL 600.2301 so that the amended NOI…”
Bush v. Shabahang, 772 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 23× “Moreover, in light of this significant clarification of § 5856, we hold that the purpose of the NOI statute is better served by allowing for defects in NOIs to be addressed in light of MCL 600.2301, which allows for amendment and disregard of "any error or defect" where the…”
Furr v. McLeod, 848 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 93× “OVERVIEW The underlying substantive issue at the heart of the conflict concerns whether MCL 600.2301 2 can serve as the basis for a court to reject dismissal of a medical malpractice action that would otherwise result from the filing of a complaint before the expiration of the…”
Boodt v. Borgess Med. Ctr., 751 N.W.2d 44 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 26× “2912b is deficient, MCL 600.2301 should control and the deficiency should be disregarded if there is no effect on the substantial rights of a party.”
Drago Kostadinovski v. Steven D Harrington Md, 909 N.W.2d 907 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 23× “BACKGROUND On December 9, 2013, plaintiffs served defendants with the NOI, asserting that on December 14, 2011, the doctor had performed robotic-assisted MVR surgery on Mr. Kostadinovski and that, as subsequently determined, Mr.”
Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency, 850 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 29× “Although the trial court otherwise reached the only result possible under the currently binding caselaw precedent, the trial court erred by failing to afford plaintiff an opportunity to pursue the possibility of amending the filing date of the complaint pursuant to MCL 600.2301.…”
DeCosta v. Gossage, 782 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 34× “Further, Bush held that errors and defects in NOIs are to be addressed in light of MCL 600.2301, which allows the amendment of NOIs and requires the court to disregard "any error or defect" when the substantial rights of the parties are not affected and the amendment is in the…”
Potter v. McLeary, 774 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 4× “2d 272 (2009), the majority concludes that, pursuant to MCL 600.2301, a plaintiff can simply amend a defective notice of intent and such amendment will "relate back to the time that the original NOI was mailed" or the courts alternatively can *43 simply "disregard any error or…”
People v. VanderVliet, 508 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “] Amendment of the pleadings to conform with *88 the proofs is now universally accepted, [48] and in Michigan authorized by MCL 600.2301; MSA 27A.2301, and MCR 6.112(G).”
Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp., 911 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “112(L)(2)(b), which provides: [A]ll challenges to an affidavit of merit or affidavit of meritorious defense, including challenges to the qualifications of the signer, must be made by motion, filed pursuant to MCR 2.”
Show all 121 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.