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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5529 (2026)

Repealed. 2018, Act 54, Eff. June 4, 2018.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 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


600.5529 Repealed. 2018, Act 54, Eff. June 4, 2018.

    Repealed. 2018, Act 54, Eff. June 4, 2018.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to actions dismissed as frivolous.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: Doe v. Dep't of Corr., 312 Mich. App. 97 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doe v. Dep't of Corr., 312 Mich. App. 97 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “5509(1)-(2), as well as the list maintained by the state court administrator’s office of the frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners concerning prison conditions, MCL 600.5529. “The existence of these provisions necessarily casts considerable doubt upon the proposition”…”
John Doe 1 v. Dep't of Corr., No. 321756 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2015). · cites it 2× “Yet, plaintiffs fail to reference MCL 600.5529, which provides: (1) The state court administrative office shall compile and maintain a list of the civil actions concerning prison conditions brought by a prisoner that are dismissed as frivolous.”
John Doe 1 v. Dep't of Corr., No. 321013 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2015). · cites it 2× “Yet, plaintiffs fail to reference MCL 600.5529, which provides: (1) The state court administrative office shall compile and maintain a list of the civil actions concerning prison conditions brought by a prisoner that are dismissed as frivolous.”
John Doe 1 v. Dep't of Corr., No. 321013 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2015). “5509(1)-(2), as well as the list maintained by the state court administrator’s office of the frivolous civil actions brought by prisoners concerning prison conditions, MCL 600.5529. “The existence of these provisions necessarily casts considerable doubt upon the proposition”…”
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.