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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6421

Trial by jury; joinder of cases; court of claims' jurisdiction; subsection (4) inapplicable to matters transferred to court of claims.

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


600.6421 Trial by jury; joinder of cases; court of claims' jurisdiction; subsection (4) inapplicable to matters transferred to court of claims.

Sec. 6421.

    (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013. Nothing in this chapter deprives the circuit, district, or probate court of jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim for which there is a right to a trial by jury as otherwise provided by law, including a claim against an individual employee of this state for which there is a right to a trial by jury as otherwise provided by law. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if a party has the right to a trial by jury and asserts that right as required by law, the claim may be heard and determined by a circuit, district, or probate court in the appropriate venue.

    (2) For declaratory or equitable relief or a demand for extraordinary writ sought by a party within the jurisdiction of the court of claims described in section 6419(1) and arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions with a matter asserted for which a party has the right to a trial by jury under subsection (1), unless joined as provided in subsection (3), the court of claims shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over the matter of declaratory or equitable relief or a demand for extraordinary writ until a final judgment has been entered, and the matter asserted for which a party has the right to a trial by jury under subsection (1) shall be stayed until final judgment on the matter of declaratory or equitable relief or a demand for extraordinary writ.

    (3) With the approval of all parties, any matter within the jurisdiction of the court of claims described in section 6419(1) may be joined for trial with cases arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions that are pending in any of the various trial courts of the state. A case in the court of claims that has been joined with the approval of all parties shall be tried and determined by the judge even though the trial court action with which it may be joined is tried to a jury under the supervision of the same trial judge.

    (4) Except as provided in subsection (5), the court of claims' jurisdiction in a matter within its jurisdiction as described in section 6419(1) and pending in any circuit, district, or probate court on November 12, 2013 is as follows:

    (a) If the matter is not transferred under section 6404(3), the jurisdiction of the court of claims is not exclusive and the circuit, district, or probate court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over that matter.

    (b) If the matter is transferred to the court of claims under section 6404(3), the court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, subject to subsection (1).

    (5) Subsection (4) does not apply to matters transferred to the court of claims under section 6404(2).

History: Add. 1974, Act 145, Imd. Eff. June 7, 1974 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 212, Imd. Eff. July 9, 1984 ;-- Am. 2013, Act 164, Imd. Eff. Nov. 12, 2013 ;-- Am. 2013, Act 205, Imd. Eff. Dec. 18, 2013

Compiler's Notes:

    Sections 2 to 7 of Act 145 of 1974 provide:

    “Effective date of changes.

    “Section 2. The changes in the composition of judicial circuits or district court districts as provided in this amendatory act shall become effective for judicial purposes on January 1, 1975.

    “Election of additional circuit and district judges; assumption of office; appearance of new judgeships on ballot; nominating petitions; incumbent judges.

    “Section 3. The additional circuit and district judges authorized by this amendatory act shall be elected in 1974 and shall assume office on January 1, 1975. The new judgeships authorized by this amendatory act shall appear on the ballot separate and apart from other judicial offices on the ballot in the primary and general election in the respective judicial circuits and district court districts. If another judicial office of the same court is to be filled by election in the same circuit or district, a candidate for a new judgeship authorized in that circuit or district by this amendatory act shall indicate, at the time of filing his nominating petitions, whether he is filing for a new judgeship or for 1 of the other judicial offices of the same court to be filled by election in the applicable year. Petitions for a new judgeship created by this act must bear signatures affixed thereto after the effective date of this act. Any incumbent circuit or district judge whose term is expiring January 1, 1975, and who is seeking election to a judicial office of the same court in 1974 is entitled to the designation of his office even if he is a candidate for a new office of the same court authorized by this amendatory act.

    “Nominating petitions.

    “Section 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nominating petitions for the offices added by this 1974 amendatory act shall contain not less than 1/2 of 1% nor more than 2% of the total number of votes cast in that judicial circuit for secretary of state at the last preceding general November election in which a secretary of state was elected.

    “Nomination, election, and terms of candidates for new circuit judgeships.

    “Section 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 169 of the Public Acts of 1972, the 10 candidates for the new circuit judgeships in the third judicial circuit created by Act No. 169 of the Public Acts of 1972 who receive the highest votes in the August primary election shall be deemed nominated for the 5 new judgeships created thereby. Of the additional judgeships so created for the third judicial circuit the candidate receiving the highest number of votes in the 1974 general election shall be elected for a term of 10 years, the candidates receiving the second and third highest number of votes shall be elected for a term of 8 years, and the candidates receiving the fourth and fifth highest number of votes shall be elected for a term of 6 years.

    “Terms of additional circuit judges.

    “Section 6. The additional circuit judges authorized by this amendatory act shall be elected for a term of 6 years except that the additional circuit judge authorized by this amendatory act in the forty-fourth judicial circuit shall be elected for a term of 8 years.

    “Terms of additional district judges in certain districts.

    “Section 7. In districts in which the district court is already functioning on the effective date of this amendatory act, the additional district judges authorized by this amendatory act shall be elected for a term of 6 years, except that the additional district judges authorized in the first election division of the ninth district and in the fifteenth district shall be elected for a term of 8 years and that the additional district judge authorized in the newly divided forty-first-a district shall be elected for a term of 4 years.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Baynesan v. Wayne State University
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baynesan v. Wayne State University (2016) michctapp · cites it 13× “As amended by 2013 PA 205 , MCL 600.6421 provides in part: (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013.”
Chen v. Wayne State University (2009) michctapp · cites it 6× “However, Chen’s case in the Court of Claims was consolidated with his case in the Wayne Circuit Court under MCL 600.6421, which provides that “ [cjases in the court of claims may be joined for trial with cases arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions which…”
Jane Doe v. Department of Transportation (2018) michctapp · cites it 7× “6419 is expressly subject to MCL 600.6421. See MCL 600.6419(1) ("Except as provided in sections 6421 and 6440, the jurisdiction of the court of claims, as conferred upon it by this chapter, is exclusive.”
Lumley v. U of M Bd of Regents (1996) michctapp · cites it 5× “Johnson in the Washtenaw Circuit Court pursuant to MCL 600.6421; MSA 27A.6421. Defendants sought and were denied summary disposition based on governmental immunity.”
Snead v. John Carlo, Inc. (2011) michctapp · cites it 2× “In April 2009, a stipulated order for joinder was entered pursuant to which the Court of Claims, under MCL 600.6421, 3 ordered the joinder of the two actions and assigned the joined cases to the Macomb Circuit Court, with the circuit court “having concurrent jurisdiction and…”
Todd v. Department of Corrections (1999) michctapp · cites it 6× “On May 24, 1994, the Court of Claims sua sponte issued an order joining the Court of Claims case and the circuit court case pursuant to MCL 600.6421; MSA 27A.6421. The doc responded to Todd’s motion to add it as a third-party defendant, asserting that the circuit court lacked…”
O’connell v. Director of Elections (2016) michctapp “, MCL 600.6421. Notably, this Court has concluded that § 6421 grants the Court of Claims “exclusive jurisdiction” with respect to any demand for “declaratory or equitable relief’ against the state or any of its departments.”
Silverman v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (1994) mich · cites it 2× “We reject that interpretation as unsound and contrary to the intent of the Legislature, because it would mean splitting a single suit between two forums.”
Hickey v. Zezulka (1989) michctapp · cites it 2× “" MCL 600.6421; MSA 27A.6421. A decision whether to admit certain evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion.”
Anzaldua v. Band (1996) michctapp “Thus, in the WPA, the Legislature waived the right of state entities to be sued only in the Court of Claims.”
Longworth v. Department of State Highways (1981) michctapp “The trial court acquired jurisdiction under MCL 600.6421; MSA 27A.6421, which provides: "Cases in the court of claims may be joined for trial with cases arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions which are pending in any of the various circuits of the state.”
Faigenbaum v. Oakland Medical Center (1985) michctapp “Pursuant to the provisions of § 6421 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.6421; MSA 27A.6421, the Court of Claims action was joined for trial with the suit in Wayne County Circuit Court.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6421(1) — 19 cases
Jane Doe v. Department of Transportation (2018) michctapp “6419 is expressly subject to MCL 600.6421. See MCL 600.6419(1) ("Except as provided in sections 6421 and 6440, the jurisdiction of the court of claims, as conferred upon it by this chapter, is exclusive.”
Baynesan v. Wayne State University (2016) michctapp “As amended by 2013 PA 205 , MCL 600.6421 provides in part: (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013.”
Jane Doe v. Department of Transportation (2018) michctapp
MacOmb County Restaurant Bar and Banquet Assn v. Dhhs Director (2022) michctapp
20221229_C360377_20_360377.Opn.Pdf (2022) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6421(2) — 4 cases
Baynesan v. Wayne State University (2016) michctapp “As amended by 2013 PA 205 , MCL 600.6421 provides in part: (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013.”
Tom Nowacki v. Department of Corrections (2017) michctapp
Susan Christie v. Wayne State University (2023) mich
Susan Christie v. Wayne State University (2023) mich
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6421(3) — 3 cases
Baynesan v. Wayne State University (2016) michctapp “As amended by 2013 PA 205 , MCL 600.6421 provides in part: (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013.”
Laura Beal v. Office of Retirement Services (2016) michctapp
Tom Nowacki v. Department of Corrections (2017) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6421(4)(a) — 2 cases
Baynesan v. Wayne State University (2016) michctapp “As amended by 2013 PA 205 , MCL 600.6421 provides in part: (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013.”
Allen Park Retirees Association Inc v. State of Michigan (2016) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6421(4)(b) — 3 cases
Baynesan v. Wayne State University (2016) michctapp “As amended by 2013 PA 205 , MCL 600.6421 provides in part: (1) Nothing in this chapter eliminates or creates any right a party may have to a trial by jury, including any right that existed before November 12, 2013.”
MacOmb County Restaurant Bar and Banquet Assn v. Dhhs Director (2022) michctapp
20221229_C360377_20_360377.Opn.Pdf (2022) michctapp
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.