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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6446 (2026)

Appeals to court of appeals; procedure; notice of entry of final order or judgment; time for appeal as of right.

✓ 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


600.6446 Appeals to court of appeals; procedure; notice of entry of final order or judgment; time for appeal as of right.

Sec. 6446.

    (1) Appeals shall lie from the court of claims to the court of appeals in all respects as if the court of claims was a circuit court.

    (2) The procedure for the taking of appeals to the court of appeals from the court of claims shall be governed by the statutes and court rules governing the taking of appeals from a circuit court to the court of appeals in a case at law, without a jury.

    (3) The clerk of the court of claims shall immediately furnish the parties to every action with a notice of entry of any final order or judgment, and the time within which an appeal as of right may be taken shall be governed by the Michigan court rules.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 212, Imd. Eff. July 9, 1984

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: David Krieger v. Dep't of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
David Krieger v. Dep't of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “MCL 600.6446(1). -22- alleged that, despite the dam being privately owned by Boyce, defendants’ operational control over the dam constituted a public use.”
Roger Turunen v. Dep't of Nat. Resources (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “MCL 600.6446(1). Our review of each of the relevant issues is de novo—the Court of Claims’ decision to grant summary disposition, whether Turunen’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, issues of statutory interpretation, and the application of equitable tolling.”
Quentin Betty v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “STANDARD OF REVIEW Betty contends that the Court of Claims erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on his breach-of-contract claim because there was a binding contract supported by consideration.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6446(1): 3 cases
David Krieger v. Dep't of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “MCL 600.6446(1). -22- alleged that, despite the dam being privately owned by Boyce, defendants’ operational control over the dam constituted a public use.”
Roger Turunen v. Dep't of Nat. Resources (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “MCL 600.6446(1). Our review of each of the relevant issues is de novo—the Court of Claims’ decision to grant summary disposition, whether Turunen’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, issues of statutory interpretation, and the application of equitable tolling.”
Quentin Betty v. Dep't of Corr. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “STANDARD OF REVIEW Betty contends that the Court of Claims erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendants on his breach-of-contract claim because there was a binding contract supported by consideration.”
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.