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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705 (2026)

Limited personal jurisdiction over individuals.

✓ 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


600.705 Limited personal jurisdiction over individuals.

Sec. 705.

    The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable a court of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over the individual and to enable the court to render personal judgments against the individual or his representative arising out of an act which creates any of the following relationships:

    (1) The transaction of any business within the state.

    (2) The doing or causing an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort.

    (3) The ownership, use, or possession of real or tangible personal property situated within the state.

    (4) Contracting to insure a person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting.

    (5) Entering into a contract for services to be rendered or for materials to be furnished in the state by the defendant.

    (6) Acting as a director, manager, trustee, or other officer of a corporation incorporated under the laws of, or having its principal place of business within this state.

    (7) Maintaining a domicile in this state while subject to a marital or family relationship which is the basis of the claim for divorce, alimony, separate maintenance, property settlement, child support, or child custody.

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 90, Eff. Apr. 1, 1975

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 2 of Act 90 of 1974 provides: “This amendatory act shall apply to an action commenced on or after the effective date of this act regardless of whether or not the cause of action arose prior to the effective date of this act or thereafter.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 180 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Yoost v. Caspari, 813 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yoost v. Caspari, 813 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 18× “Asher further argued that the trial court could not exercise limited personal jurisdiction over him under Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, and that Michigan’s exercising jurisdiction over him would violate due process.”
Sifers v. Horen, 188 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 40× “This case involves the construction to be given to the Michigan long-arm statute (MCLA § 600.705, subdivisions [1] and [2] [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Green v. Wilson, 565 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 16× “§ 600.705; M.S.A. § 27A.705. Therefore, we would reverse the Court of Appeals determination that Michigan courts may exercise limited personal jurisdiction over him.”
W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski, 651 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an individual nonresident defendant under the following relevant circumstances: The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state…”
Herman Theunissen & Ann Theunissen v. Sid Matthews D/B/A Matthews Lumber Transfer, 935 F.2d 1454 (6th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.705 (West 1981).”
Mcnic Oil & Gas Co. v. Ibex Resources Co., LLC, 23 F. Supp. 2d 729 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 10× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.705. 4 . Plaintiff does not allege any on-going or lasting relationship between JMA and Michigan.”
Indah v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 661 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705 (1). Finally, the fact that Newmont’s sale of stock to the general public may have included sales to individuals within Michigan does not support specific or general jurisdiction.”
Ajuba Int'l, L.L.C. v. Saharia, 871 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 4× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705 (2) (covering individuals); § 600.”
Dedvukaj v. Maloney, 447 F. Supp. 2d 813 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 5× “§ 600.705: The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable a court of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over the individual and to…”
Khalaf v. Bankers & Shippers Ins., 273 N.W.2d 811 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 4× “" MCL 600.705; MSA 27A.705. The consequence alleged to have occurred in Michigan *144 is that they (Michigan residents) are unable to collect in Michigan or elsewhere the Michigan judgment which they obtained against National.”
Schneider v. Linkfield, 209 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. 1973). · cites it 14× “The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial holding that there was jurisdiction over the defendants under the long-arm statute, MCLA 600.705; MSA 27A.705. [2] Since this is a question of first impression in our state, we granted leave to appeal.”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Noretto, 495 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2007). · cites it 5× “§ 600.705. This Court has previously noted that the standard of the Michigan long-arm statute is “extraordinarily easy to meet.”
Show all 180 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705(1) — 52 cases
Yoost v. Caspari, 813 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Asher further argued that the trial court could not exercise limited personal jurisdiction over him under Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, and that Michigan’s exercising jurisdiction over him would violate due process.”
Sifers v. Horen, 188 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. 1971). “This case involves the construction to be given to the Michigan long-arm statute (MCLA § 600.705, subdivisions [1] and [2] [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski, 651 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an individual nonresident defendant under the following relevant circumstances: The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state…”
Herman Theunissen & Ann Theunissen v. Sid Matthews D/B/A Matthews Lumber Transfer, 935 F.2d 1454 (6th Cir. 1991). “Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.705 (West 1981).”
First Sec. Bank v. McMillan, 627 F. Supp. 305 (W.D. Mich. 1985).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705(2) — 40 cases
Yoost v. Caspari, 813 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “Asher further argued that the trial court could not exercise limited personal jurisdiction over him under Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, and that Michigan’s exercising jurisdiction over him would violate due process.”
W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski, 651 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an individual nonresident defendant under the following relevant circumstances: The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state…”
Sifers v. Horen, 188 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. 1971). “This case involves the construction to be given to the Michigan long-arm statute (MCLA § 600.705, subdivisions [1] and [2] [Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.”
Ajuba Int'l, L.L.C. v. Saharia, 871 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705 (2) (covering individuals); § 600.”
Amburn v. Harold Forster Indus., Ltd., 423 F. Supp. 1302 (E.D. Mich. 1976).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705(3) — 4 cases
Schneider v. Linkfield, 209 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. 1973). “The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial holding that there was jurisdiction over the defendants under the long-arm statute, MCLA 600.705; MSA 27A.705. [2] Since this is a question of first impression in our state, we granted leave to appeal.”
Schumacher v. Tidswell, 360 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705(5) — 5 cases
Dedvukaj v. Maloney, 447 F. Supp. 2d 813 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “§ 600.705: The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable a court of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over the individual and to…”
W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski, 651 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCL 600.705, authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over an individual nonresident defendant under the following relevant circumstances: The existence of any of the following relationships between an individual or his agent and the state…”
Corey v. Cook & Co., 142 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).
Bradley v. Smith (E.D. Mich. 2023).
2089 Riggs Road Real Est., LLC v. Virdi, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705(6) — 3 cases
Allard v. Benjamin (In Re DeLorean Motor Co.), 49 B.R. 900 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985).
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Noretto, 495 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “§ 600.705. This Court has previously noted that the standard of the Michigan long-arm statute is “extraordinarily easy to meet.”
Ciena Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. v. Grp. Resources Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.705(7) — 6 cases
Caldwell v. Chapman, 610 N.W.2d 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
Fitzwater v. Fitzwater, 294 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
In re Contempt of Dorsey, 858 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Ewing v. Bolden, 486 N.W.2d 96 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
Lowe v. Lowe, 309 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
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.