Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5011 (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Repealed. 2012, Act 370, Eff.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

600.5011 Repealed. 2012, Act 370, Eff. July 1, 2013.

Repealed. 2012, Act 370, Eff. July 1, 2013.

Compiler's Notes:

The repealed section pertained to revocation of arbitration agreements.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1967–2007 · leading case: Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wold Architects & Engineers v. Strat, 713 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 8× “] MCL 600.5011 divests parties of the power to unilaterally revoke agreements made pursuant to MCL 600.”

Heurtebise v. Reliable Bus. Computers, Inc, 550 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 600.5011; M.S.A. § 27A.5011. [6] The table of contents lists the following headings: administrative policies, rules and procedures.”

Old Orchard by the Bay Assocs. v. Hamilton Mut. Ins., 454 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.5011; MSA 27A.5011. Upon the making of this agreement, the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce its terms and to render judgment on the award thereunder.”

Johnson v. Johnson, 739 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “5072(1) states, "The court shall not order a party to participate in arbitration unless each party to the domestic relations matter acknowledges, in writing or on the record, that he or she has been informed in plain language" of a litany of rights and conditions, including the…”

Stewart v. Fairlane Cmty. Mental Health Centre, 571 N.W.2d 542 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Under the Michigan arbitration act, neither party to an arbitration agreement can revoke the agreement without the other party’s consent, MCL 600.5011; MSA 27A.5011, 7 which *421 is contrary to the defendant’s reserving its right to change its employment policies at any time.”

Hetrick v. Friedman, 602 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “MCL 600.5011; MSA 27A.5011. In contrast, if the arbitration agreement does not provide “that judgment shall be entered in accordance with the arbitrators’ decision,” the contract involves common-law arbitration rather than statutory arbitration.”

Am. Parts Co., Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 154 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “2(3), and to compel arbitration in accordance with CLS 1961, § 600.5011 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev §27A.5011).”

E. E. Tripp Excavating Contractor, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 230 N.W.2d 556 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “” MCLA 600.5011; MSA 27A.5011. "Upon the making of an agreement described in section 5001, the circuit courts have jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and to render judgment on an award thereunder.”

Detroit Demolition Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 205 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “MCLA 600.5011; MSA 27A.5011. Thus the intimation that Burroughs could have boycotted the arbitration proceedings in order to preserve inviolate its objection to the arbitrability of the disputed claims is not viable.”

Twp. of Gaines v. Carlson, Hohloch, Mitchell & Piotrowski, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “and is irrevocable without consent of the other party, and "if either party neglects to appear before the arbitrators after due notice, the arbitrators may nevertheless proceed to hear and determine the matters submitted to them upon the evidence *529 produced by the other…”

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.