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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.308a (2026)

Action under Const. 1963, Art. 9, § 32; commencement; jurisdiction; limitations; governmental unit as defendant; officer as party; continuation of action against governmental unit and officer's successor; referral of action; findings of fact; costs.

✓ 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


600.308a Action under Const. 1963, Art. 9, § 32; commencement; jurisdiction; limitations; governmental unit as defendant; officer as party; continuation of action against governmental unit and officer's successor; referral of action; findings of fact; costs.

Sec. 308a.

    (1) An action under section 32 of article 9 of the state constitution of 1963 may be commenced in the court of appeals, or in the circuit court in the county in which venue is proper, at the option of the party commencing the action.

    (2) The jurisdiction of the court of appeals shall be invoked by filing an action by a taxpayer as plaintiff according to the court rules governing procedure in the court of appeals.

    (3) A taxpayer shall not bring or maintain an action under this section unless the action is commenced within 1 year after the cause of action accrued.

    (4) The unit of government shall be named as defendant. An officer of any governmental unit shall be sued in his or her official capacity only and shall be described as a party by his or her official title and not by name. If an officer dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office during the pendency of the action, the action shall continue against the governmental unit and the officer's successor in office.

    (5) The court of appeals may refer an action to the circuit court or to the tax tribunal to determine and report its findings of fact if substantial fact finding is necessary to decide the action.

    (6) A plaintiff who prevails in an action commenced under this section shall receive from the defendant the costs incurred by the plaintiff in maintaining the action.

History: Add. 1980, Act 110, Imd. Eff. May 13, 1980

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 600.308a(3). [4] Thus, the Headlee Amendment is already "workable" without the majority's imposition of an overbroad application of res judicata.”
Wayne Cnty. Chief Exec. v. Governor, 583 N.W.2d 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “In this regard, we decide the following three questions of law: first, whether money damages are an available remedy for a violation of the second sentence of § 29 of the Headlee Amendment; second, whether the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Headlee…”
Durant v. State of Michigan, 566 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 4× “§ 600.308a; M.S.A. § 27A.308(1), not the propriety of a refund.”
City of Riverview v. State, 808 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 5× “MCL 600.308a(5) further provides, “The court of appeals may refer an action to the circuit court or to the tax tribunal to determine and report its findings of fact if substantial fact finding is necessary to decide the action.”
Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne Cnty., 537 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 3× “” Defendant Wayne County moved for summary disposition on the basis that the suit was not filed within one year of the date the cause of action accrued, which was either March 31, 1981, the effective date of the state statute authorizing the increase, or April 1, 1981, the…”
Bolt v. City of Lansing, 604 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “a) the retroactivity, if any, of the application of the Supreme Court’s opinion and order of December 28, 1998; (b) the scope of available relief, including the entitlement of any persons, whether or not party to this suit, to the refund of previously paid “rain taxes”; and (c)…”
Durant v. State Bd. of Educ., 381 N.W.2d 662 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “Taxpayers are required to bring an action either in the Court of Appeals or in the circuit court, MCL 600.308a; MSA 27A.308(1). Where there are disputed facts, as there are in Durant, MCL 600.”
Durant v. Dep't of Educ., 463 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “The Court re *89 manded the case to this Court and instructed us to appoint a factfinder pursuant to MCL 600.308a; MSA 27A.308(1) and MCR 7.206(D)(3) to resolve the factual disputes and report findings to this Court.”
Tenneco Inc. v. Amerisure Mut. Ins., 761 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “The Court held that the pertinent one-year period of limitations, MCL 600.308a(3), applied to the refund claim.”
Kowalski v. City of Livonia, 705 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “However, given the fact that a plaintiff may only claim a Headlee violation within one year after its occurrence, MCL 600.308a(3), it would distort the purpose of the limitations period if we scanned the entire life of the cable fund searching for a surplus year.”
People v. Jones, 837 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “We do so because plaintiffs’ attorneys represent school districts and taxpayers located throughout the state and because plaintiffs chose this Court, which has statewide jurisdiction, as the court in which to commence their original action, rather than a circuit court with…”
Waterford Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 296 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “1980 PA 110 ; MCL 600.308a; MSA 27A.308(1). 4 "All actions for mandamus against a state officer shall be brought in the Court of Appeals.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.308a(1) — 5 cases
John Telford v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Indian River Trading Post v. Twp. of Tuscarora (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Indian River Trading Post v. Twp. of Tuscarora (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Michigan Health & Wellness Ctr. LLC v. Charter Twp of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Nicola Binns v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.308a(3) — 16 cases
Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004). “§ 600.308a(3). [4] Thus, the Headlee Amendment is already "workable" without the majority's imposition of an overbroad application of res judicata.”
Wayne Cnty. Chief Exec. v. Governor, 583 N.W.2d 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “In this regard, we decide the following three questions of law: first, whether money damages are an available remedy for a violation of the second sentence of § 29 of the Headlee Amendment; second, whether the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Headlee…”
Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne Cnty., 537 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. 1995). “” Defendant Wayne County moved for summary disposition on the basis that the suit was not filed within one year of the date the cause of action accrued, which was either March 31, 1981, the effective date of the state statute authorizing the increase, or April 1, 1981, the…”
Tenneco Inc. v. Amerisure Mut. Ins., 761 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “The Court held that the pertinent one-year period of limitations, MCL 600.308a(3), applied to the refund claim.”
Kowalski v. City of Livonia, 705 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “However, given the fact that a plaintiff may only claim a Headlee violation within one year after its occurrence, MCL 600.308a(3), it would distort the purpose of the limitations period if we scanned the entire life of the cable fund searching for a surplus year.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.308a(5) — 5 cases
City of Riverview v. State, 808 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 600.308a(5) further provides, “The court of appeals may refer an action to the circuit court or to the tax tribunal to determine and report its findings of fact if substantial fact finding is necessary to decide the action.”
Adair v. State, 712 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 2006).
Indian River Trading Post v. Twp. of Tuscarora (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Indian River Trading Post v. Twp. of Tuscarora (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Laurence G Wolf v. City of Detroit (Mich. 2011).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.308a(6) — 2 cases
Bolt v. City of Lansing, 604 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “a) the retroactivity, if any, of the application of the Supreme Court’s opinion and order of December 28, 1998; (b) the scope of available relief, including the entitlement of any persons, whether or not party to this suit, to the refund of previously paid “rain taxes”; and (c)…”
Bolt v. City of Lansing, 604 N.W.2d 745 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.308a(l) — 3 cases
City of Riverview v. State, 808 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 600.308a(5) further provides, “The court of appeals may refer an action to the circuit court or to the tax tribunal to determine and report its findings of fact if substantial fact finding is necessary to decide the action.”
Wayne Cnty. Chief Exec. v. Governor, 583 N.W.2d 512 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “In this regard, we decide the following three questions of law: first, whether money damages are an available remedy for a violation of the second sentence of § 29 of the Headlee Amendment; second, whether the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Headlee…”
People v. Jones, 837 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “We do so because plaintiffs’ attorneys represent school districts and taxpayers located throughout the state and because plaintiffs chose this Court, which has statewide jurisdiction, as the court in which to commence their original action, rather than a circuit court with…”
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.