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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.641 (2026)

Repealed. 1996, Act 374, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997.

✓ 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


600.641 Repealed. 1996, Act 374, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997.

    Repealed. 1996, Act 374, Eff. Jan. 1, 1997.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to removal or remand of action to district court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1971–2014 · leading case: Brooks v. Mammo, 657 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brooks v. Mammo, 657 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “On July 17, 1996, 1996 PA 374 took immediate effect and, in part, repealed MCL 600.641 effective January 1, 1997. MCL 600.”
Clohset v. No Name Corp., 840 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “As of the trial date, former MCL 600.641 (which is not at issue here, but which had permitted the removal of circuit court actions to the district court even where the amount in controversy otherwise would preclude it, and which further made lawful subsequent jury verdicts in…”
Hurt v. Michael's Food Ctr., 644 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Eventually, Hurt brought suit in the circuit court against defendant for false imprisonment and assault and battery. Hicks was later added as a party, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.”
Moody v. Home Owners Ins., 304 Mich. App. 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “he circuit court concluded that it was inappropriate for the district court to allow a plaintiff to present evidence of damages greater than the district court’s jurisdictional limit, noting that although district courts formerly were permitted to award damages in excess of the…”
Overall v. Kadella, 361 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Removal of a case from circuit court to district court because of a failure to meet the jurisdictional amount in circuit court is governed by MCL 600.641(1); MSA 27A.641(1). At the time of the trial, the statute provided: "If it appears at the conclusion of a pretrial hearing on…”
Boyd v. Nelson Credit Centers, Inc, 348 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “1; MCL 600.641; MSA 27A.641. In lieu of affirming the circuit court’s decision, we exercise our power pursuant to GCR 1963, 820.”
Riggs v. Szymanski, 233 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “1 Dale Szymanski was the driver of the vehicle which allegedly struck the plaintiffs automobile.”
Lesatz v. Stand. Green Meadows, 416 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The court therefore remanded all matters pertaining to damages to the district court, MCL 600.641; MSA 27A.641. The circuit court essentially considered the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, however, and recommended to the district court that it grant summary disposition on all…”
Ass'n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 173 Mich. App. 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “641(2), which allowed district judges to "re-remand” a case to circuit court if: (1) the case had been remanded from the circuit court to the district court under MCL 600.641; MSA 27A.641, as appearing to have damages less than $10,000; and (2) the district judge held a hearing,…”
Baxter v. Gates Rubber Co., 431 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “The circuit court removed the case to the 46th District Court pursuant to MCL 600.641(1); MSA 27A.641, ruling that the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff would be less than the jurisdictional limitation applicable to district court.”
Clemons v. City of Detroit, 327 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “, that MCL 600.641 is ipso facto decisional, the opinion and order rendered below is nonetheless legally unsupportable”; (4) The result reach by application of MCL 600.”
Adamski v. Cole, 494 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “See MCL 600.641(4); MSA 27A.641(4); MCR 4.002(C), 4.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.641(1) — 6 cases
Brooks v. Mammo, 657 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “On July 17, 1996, 1996 PA 374 took immediate effect and, in part, repealed MCL 600.641 effective January 1, 1997. MCL 600.”
Baxter v. Gates Rubber Co., 431 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “The circuit court removed the case to the 46th District Court pursuant to MCL 600.641(1); MSA 27A.641, ruling that the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff would be less than the jurisdictional limitation applicable to district court.”
Overall v. Kadella, 361 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Removal of a case from circuit court to district court because of a failure to meet the jurisdictional amount in circuit court is governed by MCL 600.641(1); MSA 27A.641(1). At the time of the trial, the statute provided: "If it appears at the conclusion of a pretrial hearing on…”
Hurt v. Michael's Food Ctr., 644 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Eventually, Hurt brought suit in the circuit court against defendant for false imprisonment and assault and battery. Hicks was later added as a party, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.”
Clemons v. City of Detroit, 327 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “, that MCL 600.641 is ipso facto decisional, the opinion and order rendered below is nonetheless legally unsupportable”; (4) The result reach by application of MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.641(2) — 2 cases
Ass'n of Bus. Advocating Tariff Equity v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 173 Mich. App. 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “641(2), which allowed district judges to "re-remand” a case to circuit court if: (1) the case had been remanded from the circuit court to the district court under MCL 600.641; MSA 27A.641, as appearing to have damages less than $10,000; and (2) the district judge held a hearing,…”
Clemons v. City of Detroit, 327 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “, that MCL 600.641 is ipso facto decisional, the opinion and order rendered below is nonetheless legally unsupportable”; (4) The result reach by application of MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.641(4) — 2 cases
Adamski v. Cole, 494 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “See MCL 600.641(4); MSA 27A.641(4); MCR 4.002(C), 4.”
Riggs v. Szymanski, 233 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “1 Dale Szymanski was the driver of the vehicle which allegedly struck the plaintiffs automobile.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.641(5) — 3 cases
Brooks v. Mammo, 657 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “On July 17, 1996, 1996 PA 374 took immediate effect and, in part, repealed MCL 600.641 effective January 1, 1997. MCL 600.”
Overall v. Kadella, 361 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “Removal of a case from circuit court to district court because of a failure to meet the jurisdictional amount in circuit court is governed by MCL 600.641(1); MSA 27A.641(1). At the time of the trial, the statute provided: "If it appears at the conclusion of a pretrial hearing on…”
Hurt v. Michael's Food Ctr., 644 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Eventually, Hurt brought suit in the circuit court against defendant for false imprisonment and assault and battery. Hicks was later added as a party, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.”
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.