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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2951 (2026)

“Approved signaling device” and “pistol” defined; use of approved signaling device; strict liability for damages; exception.

✓ 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


600.2951 “Approved signaling device” and “pistol” defined; use of approved signaling device; strict liability for damages; exception.

Sec. 2951.

    (1) As used in this section:

    (a) "Approved signaling device" means a pistol that is a signaling device approved by the United States coast guard under regulations issued under 46 USC 3306 or under 46 USC 4302, or predecessor statutes, and including, but not limited to, 46 CFR parts 160 and 161.

    (b) "Pistol" means a firearm, loaded or unloaded, 26 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.

    (2) A person who uses an approved signaling device shall be strictly liable for any damages caused to person or property by that use unless the person reasonably believes that its use is necessary for the safety of himself or herself or of another person on the waters of this state or in an aircraft.

History: Add. 1982, Act 186, Eff. July 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 244, Eff. Jan. 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Amelia Quelas v. Daimler Trucks North Am. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “39 As Daimler and DDC correctly note, only a prevailing party is entitled to seek sanctions under MCL 600.2951. Requiring the filing of a motion for sanctions prior to the summary disposition ruling is entirely illogical, as there could be no prevailing party until a decision on…”
Gabriela N Nolen v. Est. of Charles L Laura (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “114 and MCL 600.2951, which granted defendants’ request for sanctions and awarded the three defendants collectively $86,798.”
Gabriela N Nolen v. Est. of Charles L Laura (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “114 and MCL 600.2951, which granted defendants’ request for sanctions and awarded the three defendants collectively $86,798.”
Gregory Perttunen v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Under MCL 600.2951, “if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs…”
Gregory Perttunen v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Under MCL 600.2951, “if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs…”
Rebekah Lynn Selvig v. Gary Anthony Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “However, a party’s intent is not the sole factor in determining whether an action was frivolous under MCL 600.2951. Under the statute, a “frivolous” action is one where: -3- (i) The party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass,…”
Eric Bradley v. Linda Frye-Chaiken (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “2591(1) also dictates that the court must award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party and assess the award against the nonprevailing party and that party’s attorney: Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was…”
Leonora Walchak v. Dan W Walchak (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 600.2951(1).] MCL 600.2591(3) defines the term “frivolous” to mean at least one of the following: (1) “[t]he party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party[,]” (2) “[t]he party had no…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2951(1) — 4 cases
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Eric Bradley v. Linda Frye-Chaiken (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “2591(1) also dictates that the court must award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party and assess the award against the nonprevailing party and that party’s attorney: Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was…”
Leonora Walchak v. Dan W Walchak (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 600.2951(1).] MCL 600.2591(3) defines the term “frivolous” to mean at least one of the following: (1) “[t]he party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party[,]” (2) “[t]he party had no…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2951(3)(a) — 2 cases
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2951(3)(a)(ii) — 2 cases
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2951(3)(a)(iii) — 2 cases
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2951(3)(b) — 2 cases
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
Tj Theisen v. Inventive Consulting LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and that IC was thus entitled to sanctions under MCL 600.2951(1), MCR 2.625, and MCR 1.109(E).”
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.