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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2311 (2026)

Amendment of process or pleadings after 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


600.2311 Amendment of process or pleadings after judgment.

Sec. 2311.

    After judgment rendered in any cause, any defect or imperfections in matter or form, contained in the record, pleadings, process, entries, returns, or other proceedings, may be rectified and amended by the court, in affirmance of the judgment, so that such judgment shall not be reversed or annulled; and any variation in the record, from any process, pleading or proceeding had in such cause, shall be reformed and amended according to such original process, pleading or proceeding.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1967–2017 · leading case: Freeman v. Meijer, Inc, 291 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Freeman v. Meijer, Inc, 291 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “The power of the circuit court to order the pleadings amended is expressly found in MCL 600.2311; MSA 27A.2311, which provides in part: "Sec.”
Wallace v. Wallace, 179 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “” MCLA § 600.2311 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Wayne Creamery v. Suyak, 158 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “3 Revised judicature act, RA 1961, No 236, § 2311 (CLS 1961, § 600.2311 [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.2311].”
Livingston v. Krown Chem. Mfg., Inc, 229 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. 1975). “” MCLA 600.2311; MSA 27A.2311. (Emphasis supplied.”
Jefferson Maint. Co. v. Detroit Electrotype Co., 152 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “(1955), 344 Mich 75 ; CLS 1961, §§ 600.2311, 600.2315(8), 600.2321 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev §§ 27A.”
Federated Fin. Reserve Corp. v. Judy Wang (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” Relying on MCL 600.2311, plaintiff argued that any clerical errors in the May 30, 2000 judgment or any other documents in the lower court file ought not to thwart plaintiff’s ability to collect against its judgment.”
Federated Fin. Reserve Corp. v. Judy Wang (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” Relying on MCL 600.2311, plaintiff argued that any clerical errors in the May 30, 2000 judgment or any other documents in the lower court file ought not to thwart plaintiff’s ability to collect against its judgment.”
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.