Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4411 (2026)

Mandamus; violation; penalty.

✓ 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

600.4411 Mandamus; violation; penalty.

Sec. 4411.

Whenever mandamus is directed to any public officer, body or board, corporation or corporate officer, commanding them to perform any duty, specially enjoined upon them by any provisions of law, in addition to ordering the performance of such duty, if it appears to the court that such officer, or any member of such body or board, has, without just excuse, refused or neglected to perform the duty so enjoined, the court may impose a fine not exceeding $250.00 upon every such officer or member of such board or body.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Lee v. MacOmb Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 597 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lee v. MacOmb Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 597 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “III In both the Wayne and Macomb County cases, the plaintiffs seek to compel full compliance by the counties with the mandates of the Soldiers' Relief Fund act.”

North Oakland Cnty. Bd. of Realtors v. Realcomp, Inc, 572 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “1 See MCL 600.4411; MSA 27A.4411; MCR 3.301, 3.”

20231207_C363697_43_363697.Opn.Ord.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “For example, in MCL 600.4411, our Legislature provided for a fine related to mandamus.”

Pure Prop. Holdings LLC v. City of Inkster (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “3 l0(A) and/or pursuant to MCL § 600.4411.” Plaintiff further requested that the trial court: (1) “Order the Clerk to issue a decision as to Plaintiff’s marijuana business license application”; (2) “Order the City Council to issue a decision as to Plaintiff’s special land use…”

Senate v. House of Representatives (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “The duty at issue here lies squarely with the Legislature. It is the Legislature that passes bills, and it therefore must be the Legislature that presents them to the Governor.”

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.