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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431 (2026)

Court of claims; notice of intention to file claim; requirements; time; verification; copies; applicability to claims for compensation under the wrongful imprisonment compensation act.

✓ 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


600.6431 Court of claims; notice of intention to file claim; requirements; time; verification; copies; applicability to claims for compensation under the wrongful imprisonment compensation act.

Sec. 6431.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a claim may not be maintained against this state unless the claimant, within 1 year after the claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against this state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies.

    (2) A claim or notice under subsection (1) must contain all of the following:

    (a) A statement of the time when and the place where the claim arose.

    (b) A detailed statement of the nature of the claim and of the items of damage alleged or claimed to have been sustained.

    (c) A designation of any department, commission, board, institution, arm, or agency of the state involved in connection with the claim.

    (d) A signature and verification by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.

    (3) A claimant shall furnish copies of a claim or notice filed under subsection (1) to the clerk at the time of filing for transmittal to the attorney general and to each of the departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies of this state designated in the claim or notice.

    (4) For a claim against this state for property damage or personal injuries, the claimant shall file the claim or notice under subsection (1) with the clerk of the court of claims within 6 months after the event that gives rise to the claim.

    (5) This section does not apply to a claim for compensation under the wrongful imprisonment compensation act, 2016 PA 343, MCL 691.1751 to 691.1757.

    

    

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 42, Imd. Eff. Mar. 3, 2020

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 42 of 2020 provides:

    "Enacting section 1. Section 6431 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.6431, as amended by this amendatory act, applies retroactively to March 29, 2017."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 188 cases (72 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Mccahan v. Brennan, 822 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mccahan v. Brennan, 822 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 86× “The Court of Appeals correctly determined that when the Legislature conditions the ability to pursue a claim against the state on a plaintiff’s having filed specific statutory notice, the courts may not engraft an “actual prejudice” component onto the statute as a precondition…”
Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder, 916 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 62× “State and city defendants separately moved for summary disposition on all four counts, arguing that, among other things, plaintiffs had (1) failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of MCL 600.6431, (2) failed to allege facts to establish a constitutional violation for…”
Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency, 931 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2019). · cites it 34× “STANDARD OF REVIEW MCL 600.6431 "establishes conditions precedent for avoiding" governmental immunity.”
Michelle Renee Fairley v. Dep't of Corr., 497 Mich. 290 (Mich. 2015). · cites it 21× “We consider in these consolidated cases whether a claimant’s failure to comply with the notice verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 provides a complete defense in an action against the state or one of its departments.”
Beasley v. State, 765 N.W.2d 608 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 16× “The notice provision in MCL 600.6431 provides: (1) No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within 1 year after such claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to…”
McCahan v. Brennan, 804 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 22× “The language of MCL 600.6431 clearly states the steps a plaintiff must take in order to make a claim against the state: (1) No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within 1 year after such claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court…”
Rusha v. Dep't of Corr., 859 N.W.2d 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “Because we hold that the statutory notice requirement of MCL 600.6431 applies to constitutional torts, we reverse the Court of Claims’ decision to the contrary and remand this case for entry of an order granting the DOC’s motion for summary disposition.”
Progress Michigan v. Attorney Gen., 922 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 14× “Thus, contrary to plaintiff's position, defendant's assertion that plaintiff failed to comply with MCL 600.”
Fields v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 874 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “” Its command is clear; if the notice requirements are not met, the claim “may [not] be maintained[.”
Adr Consultants LLC v. Michigan Land Bank Fast Track Auth., 932 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 21× “Defendants first moved for summary disposition on January 5, 2016, contending, inter alia , that MCL 600.6431 barred ADR's claims because notice of those claims had not been provided within one year of accrual.”
Lawrence Russell v. City of Detroit, 909 N.W.2d 507 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “2d 129 (approvingly quoting the defendant's statement that the notice required by MCL 600.6431 must " 'bear an indication that the signature was signed and sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths").”
Oak Constr. Co. v. Dep't of State Highways, 190 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 12× “Defendant filed a motion for an accelerated judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had not filed a notice of claim within one year after the claim accrued as required by MCLA § 600.6431 (1) (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Show all 188 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(1) — 115 cases
Mccahan v. Brennan, 822 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2012). “The Court of Appeals correctly determined that when the Legislature conditions the ability to pursue a claim against the state on a plaintiff’s having filed specific statutory notice, the courts may not engraft an “actual prejudice” component onto the statute as a precondition…”
Michelle Renee Fairley v. Dep't of Corr., 497 Mich. 290 (Mich. 2015). “We consider in these consolidated cases whether a claimant’s failure to comply with the notice verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 provides a complete defense in an action against the state or one of its departments.”
Progress Michigan v. Attorney Gen., 922 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Thus, contrary to plaintiff's position, defendant's assertion that plaintiff failed to comply with MCL 600.”
Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder, 916 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “State and city defendants separately moved for summary disposition on all four counts, arguing that, among other things, plaintiffs had (1) failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of MCL 600.6431, (2) failed to allege facts to establish a constitutional violation for…”
Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency, 931 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2019). “STANDARD OF REVIEW MCL 600.6431 "establishes conditions precedent for avoiding" governmental immunity.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(1)(d) — 1 case
Elia Companies LLC v. Univ. of Michigan Regents (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(2) — 8 cases
Michelle Renee Fairley v. Dep't of Corr., 497 Mich. 290 (Mich. 2015). “We consider in these consolidated cases whether a claimant’s failure to comply with the notice verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 provides a complete defense in an action against the state or one of its departments.”
Jacqueline Anna Reed v. State of Michigan, 922 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Jacqueline Anna Reed v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Elia Companies LLC v. Univ. of Michigan Regents (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Msc 162830 Elia Companies Llc V Univ. Of Michigan Regents Order 5/2/2023 (Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(2)(a) — 1 case
Ruben Delgado v. State Police (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(2)(d) — 13 cases
Outside Legal Couns. Plc v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Martha Cavill v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Miguel Ortiz v. Michael David Fox (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Elizabeth Gladson v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Progress Michigan v. Attorney Gen. (Mich. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(3) — 67 cases
Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder, 916 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “State and city defendants separately moved for summary disposition on all four counts, arguing that, among other things, plaintiffs had (1) failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of MCL 600.6431, (2) failed to allege facts to establish a constitutional violation for…”
Bauserman v. Unemployment Ins. Agency, 931 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2019). “STANDARD OF REVIEW MCL 600.6431 "establishes conditions precedent for avoiding" governmental immunity.”
Mccahan v. Brennan, 822 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2012). “The Court of Appeals correctly determined that when the Legislature conditions the ability to pursue a claim against the state on a plaintiff’s having filed specific statutory notice, the courts may not engraft an “actual prejudice” component onto the statute as a precondition…”
McCahan v. Brennan, 804 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “The language of MCL 600.6431 clearly states the steps a plaintiff must take in order to make a claim against the state: (1) No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, within 1 year after such claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court…”
Rusha v. Dep't of Corr., 859 N.W.2d 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Because we hold that the statutory notice requirement of MCL 600.6431 applies to constitutional torts, we reverse the Court of Claims’ decision to the contrary and remand this case for entry of an order granting the DOC’s motion for summary disposition.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(4) — 8 cases
Suvarchala Devi Chiravuri v. Univ. of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Jennifer Janssen-Rogers v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Ene (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
Laurie Breiner v. State of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Isabelle Brourman v. Univ. of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Miguel Ortiz v. Michael David Fox (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(5) — 13 cases
Susan Christie v. Wayne State Univ. (Mich. 2023).
Susan Christie v. Wayne State Univ. (Mich. 2023).
Suvarchala Devi Chiravuri v. Univ. of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Isabelle Brourman v. Univ. of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Jessica Flamont v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6431(d)(2) — 1 case
Miguel Ortiz v. Michael David Fox (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
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.