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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5732

Powers of court having jurisdiction over summary proceedings.

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


600.5732 Powers of court having jurisdiction over summary proceedings.

Sec. 5732.

    Pursuant to applicable court rules, a court having jurisdiction over summary proceedings may provide for pleadings and motions, issue process and subpoenas, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, enter and set aside defaults and default judgments, allow amendments to pleadings, process, motions and orders, order adjournments and continuances, make and enforce all other writs and orders and do all other things necessary to hear and determine summary proceedings.

History: Add. 1972, Act 120, Eff. July 1, 1972

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Flynn v Korneffel
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flynn v Korneffel (1996) mich · cites it 2× “§ 600.5732; M.S.A. § 27A.5732, evinces a legislative intent that the district court's summary proceedings jurisdiction may continue until the writ of restitution is executed.”
Dutch Baker v. Roy Betham (2023) michctapp “The powers of a court having jurisdiction over summary proceedings are stated in MCL 600.5732. which provides: Pursuant to applicable court rules, a court having jurisdiction over summary proceedings may provide for pleadings and motions, issue process and subpoenas, compel the…”
in Re Federal National Mortgage Association (2015) michctapp “” In explaining its decision to exercise superintending control over the district court, the circuit court stated that it appeared that the district court “was doing nothing, and that’s why [the circuit court] was satisfied based upon the delay,” further reasoning that a…”
Bank of America v. 5-3 Greenway Trust (2015) michctapp “Although the circuit court did not expressly mention the term jurisdiction, it did conclude that the trust’s case failed to satisfy any of the grounds listed in MCL 600.”
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.