REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.8103 Districts, classes; definition.
Sec. 8103.
(1) A district of the first class is a district consisting of 1 or more counties and in which each county comprising the district is responsible for maintaining, financing and operating the district court within its respective county except as otherwise provided in this act.
(2) A district of the second class is a district consisting of a group of political subdivisions within a county and in which the county where such political subdivisions are situated is responsible for maintaining, financing and operating the district court except as otherwise provided in this act.
(3) A district of the third class is a district consisting of 1 or more political subdivisions within a county and in which each political subdivision comprising the district is responsible for maintaining, financing and operating the district court within its respective political subdivision except as otherwise provided in this act.
History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1971–2016 · leading case:
In re City of Detroit, 524 B.R. 147 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014).
In re City of Detroit, 524 B.R. 147 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.8103 and 600.8104.”
Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 628 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2010).
“” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8103 (3). Although the court constitutes its own administrative unit, the Michigan Supreme Court has supervisory authority over the court.”
Pucci v. Nineteenth Dist. Court, 565 F. Supp. 2d 792 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The Nineteenth District Court is designated by statute as a “third class” district court, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8121 (4), which means that the City of Dearborn “is responsible for maintaining, financing and operating the district court,” Mich.”
Barachkov v. 41B Dist. Court, 311 F. App'x 863 (6th Cir. 2009).
“See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8103 (3) (“A district of the third class is a district consisting of 1 or more political subdivisions within a county and in which *868 each political subdivision comprising the district is responsible for maintaining, financing and operating the…”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, 874 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “The municipalities could not agree on a formula for sharing expenses *106 and costs, and thus complied with the statutory default mechanisms under MCL 600.8103, MCL 600.8104, and MCL 600.8379.”
Dolan v. City of Ann Arbor, 666 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Next, in addressing the plaintiffs’ claim that the local government unit, Clinton Township, and not the State of Michigan, would be liable for any judgment against the defendant district court, the Sixth Circuit discounted the plaintiffs’ reliance on two sources — a Michigan…”
City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978).
· cites it 2× “We would enter an order declaring that the 37th district shall sit in Center Line to hear all judicial business properly brought there under the jurisdictional and venue provisions of the state, and that the judges of the court are not empowered to limit the judicial business…”
Cameron v. Monroe Cnty. Prob. Court, 579 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. 1998).
“However, MCL 600.8103(1); MSA 27A.8103(1) provides that the county is responsible for “maintaining, financing and operating the district court .”
Wayne Cnty. v. Plymouth Charter Twp., 612 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“8379(l)(c). In first- and second-class judicial districts, the county is responsible for the maintenance of the district court and two-thirds of all fines and costs resulting from the prosecution of ordinance violations must be paid to the county.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8103(1) — 1 case
Cameron v. Monroe Cnty. Prob. Court, 579 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. 1998).
“However, MCL 600.8103(1); MSA 27A.8103(1) provides that the county is responsible for “maintaining, financing and operating the district court .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8103(2) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8103(3) — 8 cases
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, 874 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The municipalities could not agree on a formula for sharing expenses *106 and costs, and thus complied with the statutory default mechanisms under MCL 600.8103, MCL 600.8104, and MCL 600.8379.”
City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978).
“We would enter an order declaring that the 37th district shall sit in Center Line to hear all judicial business properly brought there under the jurisdictional and venue provisions of the state, and that the judges of the court are not empowered to limit the judicial business…”
Wayne Cnty. v. Plymouth Charter Twp., 612 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“8379(l)(c). In first- and second-class judicial districts, the county is responsible for the maintenance of the district court and two-thirds of all fines and costs resulting from the prosecution of ordinance violations must be paid to the county.”
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.