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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4301 (2026)

Habeas corpus; provisions of chapter; applicability.

✓ 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


600.4301 Habeas corpus; provisions of chapter; applicability.

Sec. 4301.

    The provisions of sections 4301 to 4379 shall be construed to apply to every writ of habeas corpus authorized to be issued under any statute of this state, insofar as they are consistent with the statute granting the right to habeas corpus.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc v. City of Hamtramck, 604 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc v. City of Hamtramck, 604 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.4301 et seq.; MSA 27A.4301 et seq.”
People v. Price, 179 N.W.2d 177 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “Since habeas corpus was an improper method of review, it is hereby ordered under our powers of superintending control, GrCR 1963, 711.4(1), that the order of discharge be vacated and the defendant remanded to the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections.”
People v. Tubbs, 236 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “4304(2); MSA 27A.4304(2). [3] Our review of this matter — even if it is considered as an application for habeas corpus — must be by appeal only.”
People v. Puertas, 613 N.W.2d 297 (Mich. 2000). “] With regard to the instant case, defendant Puertas did not request a Michigan court to review whether his constitutional right to due process was violated by this Court's March 3, 2000, order denying his request for appeal bond, even though Michigan law provides defendant with…”
Robinson v. Bush (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4301 et seq., Mich.”
Darnell Jones v. Genesee Circuit Court Judge (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “303 and Chapter 43 of the Revised Judicature Act,1 specifically, MCL 600.4301 through MCL 600.4379. An action for habeas corpus may be brought by, or on behalf of, any person restrained of his or her liberty, MCL 600.”
Nonhuman Rights Proj. Inc v. Deyoung Fam. Zoo LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “The right is implemented statutorily by chapter 43 of the Revised Judicature Act, -8- MCL 600.4301 et seq. That said, “[t]he statute does not give the writ, but renders it more effectively and actively remedial”; its “main purpose .”
Patrick J Kenney v. Warden Raymond Booker (Mich. 2013). “The parties shall address: (1) the relationship between common law and statutory habeas corpus; (2) the standard for establishing a claim for habeas corpus relief, including whether there is a difference between the standard for providing relief at common law and by statute, MCL…”
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.