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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3805 (2026)

Action to abate; parties.

✓ 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


600.3805 Action to abate; parties.

Sec. 3805.

    The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney or any resident of the county in which a nuisance described in section 3801 is located, or a city, village, or township attorney for the city, village, or township in which the nuisance is located may maintain an action for equitable relief in the name of the state of Michigan, on the relation of the attorney general, prosecuting attorney, resident, or city, village, or township attorney to abate the nuisance and to perpetually enjoin any person, or a servant, agent, or employee of the person, who owns, leases, conducts, or maintains the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place from permitting or suffering the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place owned, leased, conducted, or maintained by the person, or any other building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or place conducted or maintained by the person to be used for any of the purposes or acts or by any of the persons described in section 3801. After an injunction is granted under this section it is binding on the defendant throughout this state.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 387, Eff. Mar. 18, 2015

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Michigan v. Mcqueen, 828 N.W.2d 644 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 4× “9 extent that it is carried out in accordance with [the MMMA],”34 the MMMA controls whether defendants’ business constitutes a public nuisance.”
Rental Prop. Owners Ass'n v. City of Grand Rapids, 566 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 4× “§ 600.3805; M.S.A. § 27A.3805 and M.C.L. § 600.”
Attorney Gen. v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLC, 783 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" MCL 600.3805. It is first necessary to determine whether PowerPick's operations constitute "gambling" within the meaning of MCL 600.”
State Ex Rel. Oakland Prosecuting Attorney v. Alray Northcrest Plaza, 381 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “) Any such nuisance may be permanently abated pursuant to the Michigan "padlock law", MCL 600.3805; MSA 27A.3805. Plaintiff contends that the disorderly persons referred to in the above-cited public nuisance statute, MCL 600.”
Michigan Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 527 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.3805; MSA 27A.3805. See MCR 3.601; 58 Am Jur 2d, Nuisances, § 321, pp 911-912.”
State Ex Rel Oakland Prosecuting Attorney v. Weaver, 254 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “The sole issue on appeal is whether the statutory cause of action under MCLA 600.3805; MSA 27A.3805 requires allegation and proof of the owner’s knowledge of, or acquiescence in, the alleged acts of prostitution on his premises.”
State Ex Rel Wayne Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Bennis, 504 N.W.2d 731 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.3805; MSA 27A.3805 authorizes prosecuting attorneys, among others, to bring an action for equitable relief to abate a nuisance.”
Hadfield v. Oakland Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 422 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “Under the public nuisance act, the Attorney General, prosecuting attorneys, and citizens are empowered to bring actions to abate activities defined as public nuisances.”
Horton v. City of Kalamazoo, 264 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “Defendant city, through its city commission, furnished legal counsel to defendant Fouts, a city police officer, and agreed to pay his costs in three actions brought by Fouts in the name of the state under the padlock law, MCLA 600.3805; MSA 27A.3805, to abate public nuisances.”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “APPLICATION OF THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT STATUTES 9 After defendant was given the opportunity to speak and neither the trial court nor plaintiff responded to his statement, the trial court rendered its ruling and the following colloquy occurred: Defendant: Excuse me.”
Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti v. Mouhanad Dahabra (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “APPLICATION OF THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT STATUTES 9 After defendant was given the opportunity to speak and neither the trial court nor plaintiff responded to his statement, the trial court rendered its ruling and the following colloquy occurred: Defendant: Excuse me.”
Preyde One LLC v. Glasers Lumber (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Based on a plain reading of the second amended complaint, it is clear that none of the allegedly negligent acts and omissions are unrelated to the professional services rendered in this case. Preyde One argues that because it does not have a contractual relationship with Hoffman…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3805(13) — 1 case
Preyde One LLC v. Glasers Lumber (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Based on a plain reading of the second amended complaint, it is clear that none of the allegedly negligent acts and omissions are unrelated to the professional services rendered in this case. Preyde One argues that because it does not have a contractual relationship with Hoffman…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3805(3) — 1 case
Preyde One LLC v. Glasers Lumber (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Based on a plain reading of the second amended complaint, it is clear that none of the allegedly negligent acts and omissions are unrelated to the professional services rendered in this case. Preyde One argues that because it does not have a contractual relationship with Hoffman…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3805(8) — 1 case
Preyde One LLC v. Glasers Lumber (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Based on a plain reading of the second amended complaint, it is clear that none of the allegedly negligent acts and omissions are unrelated to the professional services rendered in this case. Preyde One argues that because it does not have a contractual relationship with Hoffman…”
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.