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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.725 (2026)

Partnerships; limited personal jurisdiction.

✓ 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


600.725 Partnerships; limited personal jurisdiction.

Sec. 725.

    The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this state to exercise limited personal jurisdiction over such partnership or limited partnership and to enable such courts to render personal judgments against such partnership or limited partnership arising out of the act or acts which create any of the following relationships:

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

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

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

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

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

History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1966–2018 · leading case: Lak, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enter., 885 F.2d 1293 (6th Cir. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lak, Inc. v. Deer Creek Enter., 885 F.2d 1293 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “A subsequent section of the long-arm statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.725 , deals with what Professors von Mehren and Trautman have labeled “specific jurisdiction,” or jurisdiction limited to the adjudication of “issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that…”
Comm'r of Ins. v. Albino, 572 N.W.2d 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10× “§ 600.725; M.S.A. § 27A.725, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, U.”
Green v. Wilson, 565 N.W.2d 813 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 600.725; M.S.A. § 27A.725, and partnership associations or unincorporated voluntary associations, M.”
Woodward v. Keenan, 261 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “705(1), MCLA 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725(1). If, with the advent of advertising by professionals (an event apparently unforeseen by the Gelineau court, 375 F Supp at 667 ), Michigan residents are encouraged on a systematic or continuing basis to utilize professional facilities…”
Wallace v. Frank, 662 F. Supp. 876 (E.D. Mich. 1987). · cites it 5× “If the Court has jurisdiction over Raddiss & Rosenfelt, it must be found in the limited personal jurisdiction provisions of Michigan’s long-arm statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.725. Under this statute, a partnership may be subject to the jurisdiction of this court for doing, or…”
De Guvera v. Sure Fit Prods., 165 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 5× “On this appeal, De Guvera does not rely on CLS 1961, § 600.725(1) (Stat Ann 1962 Bev § 27A-.725 [1]), and accordingly we intimate no opinion regarding the applicability of that provision on the facts of this case.”
Woodward v. Keenan, 279 N.W.2d 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “705(1), MCL 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725(1). Pursuant thereto, the court below determined that defendants maintained no contracts or referral services with anyone in the state, nor did they engage in any program designed to encourage Michigan residents to make use of defendant clinic.”
Corey v. Cook & Co., 142 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “” CLS 1961, § 600.725(5) states: “The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the State shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this State to exercise…”
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “For partnerships, the applicable statute is MCL 600.725: The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this…”
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “For partnerships, the applicable statute is MCL 600.725: The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this…”
Woodward v. Keenan, 88 Mich. App. 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “705(1), MCL 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725QL). Pursuant thereto, the court below determined that defendants maintained no contracts or referral services with anyone in the state, nor did they engage in any program designed to encourage Michigan residents to make use of defendant clinic.”
Horvath v. Niles, 802 F. Supp. 146 (W.D. Mich. 1992). · cites it 4× “705 provides in relevant part that the court may exercise limited personal jurisdiction over an individual who “do[esj or caus[es] an act to be done, or consequences to occur, in the state resulting in an action for tort.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.725(1) — 6 cases
Woodward v. Keenan, 261 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “705(1), MCLA 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725(1). If, with the advent of advertising by professionals (an event apparently unforeseen by the Gelineau court, 375 F Supp at 667 ), Michigan residents are encouraged on a systematic or continuing basis to utilize professional facilities…”
Woodward v. Keenan, 279 N.W.2d 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “705(1), MCL 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725(1). Pursuant thereto, the court below determined that defendants maintained no contracts or referral services with anyone in the state, nor did they engage in any program designed to encourage Michigan residents to make use of defendant clinic.”
De Guvera v. Sure Fit Prods., 165 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “On this appeal, De Guvera does not rely on CLS 1961, § 600.725(1) (Stat Ann 1962 Bev § 27A-.725 [1]), and accordingly we intimate no opinion regarding the applicability of that provision on the facts of this case.”
Woodward v. Keenan, 88 Mich. App. 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “705(1), MCL 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725QL). Pursuant thereto, the court below determined that defendants maintained no contracts or referral services with anyone in the state, nor did they engage in any program designed to encourage Michigan residents to make use of defendant clinic.”
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “For partnerships, the applicable statute is MCL 600.725: The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.725(2) — 3 cases
Woodward v. Keenan, 261 N.W.2d 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “705(1), MCLA 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725(1). If, with the advent of advertising by professionals (an event apparently unforeseen by the Gelineau court, 375 F Supp at 667 ), Michigan residents are encouraged on a systematic or continuing basis to utilize professional facilities…”
Comm'r of Ins. v. Albino, 572 N.W.2d 21 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “§ 600.725; M.S.A. § 27A.725, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, U.”
Wallace v. Frank, 662 F. Supp. 876 (E.D. Mich. 1987). “If the Court has jurisdiction over Raddiss & Rosenfelt, it must be found in the limited personal jurisdiction provisions of Michigan’s long-arm statute, Mich.Comp.Laws § 600.725. Under this statute, a partnership may be subject to the jurisdiction of this court for doing, or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.725(3) — 2 cases
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “For partnerships, the applicable statute is MCL 600.725: The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this…”
Levert Lyons v. Scott C Kinsel (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “For partnerships, the applicable statute is MCL 600.725: The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the state shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.725(5) — 2 cases
De Guvera v. Sure Fit Prods., 165 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “On this appeal, De Guvera does not rely on CLS 1961, § 600.725(1) (Stat Ann 1962 Bev § 27A-.725 [1]), and accordingly we intimate no opinion regarding the applicability of that provision on the facts of this case.”
Corey v. Cook & Co., 142 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966). “” CLS 1961, § 600.725(5) states: “The existence of any of the following relationships between a partnership or limited partnership or an agent thereof and the State shall constitute a sufficient basis of jurisdiction to enable the courts of record of this State to exercise…”
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.