Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954 (2026)

Maintaining civil action against individual engaging in prohibited conduct; “victim” defined.

✓ 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

600.2954 Maintaining civil action against individual engaging in prohibited conduct; “victim” defined.

Sec. 2954.

(1) A victim may maintain a civil action against an individual who engages in conduct that is prohibited under section 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.411h and 750.411i of the Michigan Compiled Laws, for damages incurred by the victim as a result of that conduct. A victim may also seek and be awarded exemplary damages, costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees in an action brought under this section.

(2) A civil action may be maintained under subsection (1) whether or not the individual who is alleged to have engaged in conduct prohibited under section 411h or 411i of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931 has been charged or convicted under section 411h or 411i of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931 for the alleged violation.

(3) As used in this section, "victim" means that term as defined in section 411h of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931.

History: Add. 1992, Act 262, Eff. Jan. 1, 1993

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Nastal v. Henderson & Assocs. Investigations, Inc, 691 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nastal v. Henderson & Assocs. Investigations, Inc, 691 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 8× “Over a year later on September 19, 2000, plaintiff filed a civil action alleging, among others, a claim of civil stalking pursuant to MCL 600.2954 against Henderson, Conley, and Stovall.”

Christopher Armstrong v. Andrew Shirvell, 596 F. App'x 433 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “In turn, “harassment” is defined as: “conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing un-consented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional…”

Gamrat v. Allard, 320 F. Supp. 3d 927 (W.D. Mich. 2018). “§ 600.2954(1), which provides a civil action to any victim of conduct prohibited under M.”

Cooper-Keel v. Keel-Worrell (W.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 6× “The magistrate judge was “aware of no Michigan case recognizing a tort for generalized harassment” (R&R 9); however, Plaintiff points out that his claim is premised on Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954 , which permits a “victim” of “harassment”— as those terms are defined in Mich.”

Cooper-Keel v. Keel-Worrell (W.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 4× “Harassment/Stalking The Court has determined that Plaintiff’s harassment claim arises under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954 . Pursuant to this section, a victim may bring a civil action against an individual who engages in conduct that is prohibited as stalking under Section 411h or…”

Rahaman v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954 (1). “Stalking” is defined as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that…”

Rahaman v. Spine Specialist of Michigan (E.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954 (1). “Stalking” is defined as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that…”

Steven Iliades v. Dieffenbacher North Am. Inc (Mich. 2019). “10 There is no question that plaintiff’s conduct constituted “misuse” as defined by MCL 600.2954(e). But I cannot agree with the panel majority that plaintiff’s act of ignoring his training and partially climbing into Press Number 25 while it was set to automatic mode to…”

Martha Redmond v. Theresa Heller (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Under Count IV, plaintiffs alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, stalking, and unconsented contact, which they claimed violated MCL 600.2954 and MCL 750.411h. For Count V, Redmond and McNabb alleged that each defendant posted false and defamatory…”

Jessica Swider v. David McHugh Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “MCL 600.2954 provides a stalking victim a civil cause of action, “with the elements of civil stalking being the same as those in the criminal statutes.”

D Lac v. Gls (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” MCL 600.2954(1) (“A victim may maintain a civil action against an individual who engages in conduct .”

Brian White v. Floor Savers Maint. & Restoration Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” And in Count IV, a claim for “stalking pursuant to MCL 600.2954,” White alleged that Munyan engaged in stalking and harassment and that White is a victim who suffered damages, as those terms are defined by MCL 750.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954(1) — 4 cases

Nastal v. Henderson & Assocs. Investigations, Inc, 691 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2005). “Over a year later on September 19, 2000, plaintiff filed a civil action alleging, among others, a claim of civil stalking pursuant to MCL 600.2954 against Henderson, Conley, and Stovall.”

Gamrat v. Allard, 320 F. Supp. 3d 927 (W.D. Mich. 2018). “§ 600.2954(1), which provides a civil action to any victim of conduct prohibited under M.”

D Lac v. Gls (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” MCL 600.2954(1) (“A victim may maintain a civil action against an individual who engages in conduct .”

White 225440 v. Smith (W.D. Mich. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2954(e) — 1 case

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.