Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5001 (2026)
Repealed. 2012, Act 370, Eff. July 1, 2013.
✓ 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
600.5001 Repealed. 2012, Act 370, Eff. July 1, 2013.
Repealed. 2012, Act 370, Eff. July 1, 2013.
Compiler's Notes:
The repealed section pertained to parties to an arbitration agreement, enforcement and rescission of agreements, and exceptions for labor contracts.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 123
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006).
Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006). “and, if common-law arbitration continues to exist, (1) what language must be included in an agreement to make it subject to the rules of statutory arbitration; (2) whether common-law arbitration agreements should be unilaterally revocable; and (3) whether the arbitration in this…”
In Re Nestorovski Est., 769 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “The Michigan arbitration act (MAA), MCL 600.5001 et seq., governs statutory arbitration.”
Rembert v. Ryan’s Fam. Steak Houses, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “This statute, patterned on the Uniform Arbitration Act, is a strong and unequivocal endorsement of binding arbitration agreements: (1) All persons, except infants and persons of unsound mind, may, by an instrument in writing, submit to the decision of 1 or more arbitrators, any…”
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 742 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “STATUTORY ARBITRATION An agreement to arbitrate under the Michigan arbitration act (MAA), MCL 600.5001 et seq., is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon grounds that justify the rescission or revocation of any contract.”
Fromm v. Meemic Ins., 690 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 600.5001 et seq., and that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it called for questions of contract interpretation to be decided by the circuit court, which was in violation of the limited role a court could have in regard to arbitration under statutory arbitration…”
Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch. v. Gavin, 331 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. 1982). “" *417 Because the foregoing arbitration clause of the insurance contracts include the provision that "judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof", the arbitration is governed by MCL 600.5001 et seq.; MSA 27A.5001…”
City of Ann Arbor v. Am. Fed'n of State Employees Local 369, 771 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “However, that rule only governs statutory arbitration conducted under chapter 50 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5001 to 600.5035. MCR 3.602(A). The pertinent provisions of the RJA specifically except collective bargaining agreements from that chapter.”
Rushton v. Meijer, Inc., 570 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Such statements are premised, in part, upon Congress' enactment of the federal arbitration act, 9 U.”
Brown v. Siang, 309 N.W.2d 575 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “9(1), MCL 600.5001; MSA 27A.5001. Cf., Capman v Harper-Grace Hospital, supra, 515.”
Brucker v. Mckinlay Transp., Inc, 557 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. 1997). “n The Court of Appeals majority reasoned that the arbitration in this case was statutory arbitration under MCL 600.5001 et seq.) MSA 27A.5001 et seq.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 739 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “If the parties failed to put their agreement to arbitrate in writing, or failed to acknowledge their intent that a circuit court may enforce the arbitrator's award, then the agreement would not fall within the Michigan arbitration act, MCL 600.5001 et seq., and the agreement to…”
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Cogswell Props., LLC, 683 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2012). “See Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.5001 et seq. The Michigan Arbitration Act (MAA), requires in key part that the agreement to arbitrate be in writing and must provide that “a judgment of any circuit court may be rendered upon the award made pursuant to such agreement.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5001(1) — 9 cases
Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006). “and, if common-law arbitration continues to exist, (1) what language must be included in an agreement to make it subject to the rules of statutory arbitration; (2) whether common-law arbitration agreements should be unilaterally revocable; and (3) whether the arbitration in this…”
In Re Nestorovski Est., 769 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “The Michigan arbitration act (MAA), MCL 600.5001 et seq., governs statutory arbitration.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 739 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “If the parties failed to put their agreement to arbitrate in writing, or failed to acknowledge their intent that a circuit court may enforce the arbitrator's award, then the agreement would not fall within the Michigan arbitration act, MCL 600.5001 et seq., and the agreement to…”
Cipriano v. Cipriano, 289 Mich. App. 361 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
Ehresman v. Bultynck & Co., PC, 511 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5001(2) — 29 cases
Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006). “and, if common-law arbitration continues to exist, (1) what language must be included in an agreement to make it subject to the rules of statutory arbitration; (2) whether common-law arbitration agreements should be unilaterally revocable; and (3) whether the arbitration in this…”
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 742 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “STATUTORY ARBITRATION An agreement to arbitrate under the Michigan arbitration act (MAA), MCL 600.5001 et seq., is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon grounds that justify the rescission or revocation of any contract.”
Fromm v. Meemic Ins., 690 N.W.2d 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 600.5001 et seq., and that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it called for questions of contract interpretation to be decided by the circuit court, which was in violation of the limited role a court could have in regard to arbitration under statutory arbitration…”
Rembert v. Ryan’s Fam. Steak Houses, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “This statute, patterned on the Uniform Arbitration Act, is a strong and unequivocal endorsement of binding arbitration agreements: (1) All persons, except infants and persons of unsound mind, may, by an instrument in writing, submit to the decision of 1 or more arbitrators, any…”
Heurtebise v. Reliable Bus. Computers, Inc, 550 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. 1996).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5001(3) — 17 cases
Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006). “and, if common-law arbitration continues to exist, (1) what language must be included in an agreement to make it subject to the rules of statutory arbitration; (2) whether common-law arbitration agreements should be unilaterally revocable; and (3) whether the arbitration in this…”
City of Ann Arbor v. Am. Fed'n of State Employees Local 369, 771 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “However, that rule only governs statutory arbitration conducted under chapter 50 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.5001 to 600.5035. MCR 3.602(A). The pertinent provisions of the RJA specifically except collective bargaining agreements from that chapter.”
Rowry v. Univ. of Michigan, 490 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. 1992).
Rushton v. Meijer, Inc., 570 N.W.2d 271 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Such statements are premised, in part, upon Congress' enactment of the federal arbitration act, 9 U.”
Ogletree v. Local 79, Serv. Employees Int'l Union, 368 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
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.