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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104 (2026)

“District funding unit” or “district control unit” defined; responsibilities; agreement to share expenses; supplying law books and legal reference resources.

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104 (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


600.8104 “District funding unit” or “district control unit” defined; responsibilities; agreement to share expenses; supplying law books and legal reference resources.

Sec. 8104.

    (1) The term "district funding unit" or "district control unit" means:

    (a) The county in districts of the first and second class.

    (b) The city or the township in districts of the third class except as provided in subdivision (c).

    (c) The city or the incorporated village in districts of the third class in which portions of 2 townships comprise an incorporated village.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a district funding unit shall be responsible for maintaining, financing, and operating the court only within its political subdivision. In districts of the third class a political subdivision shall not be responsible for the expenses of maintaining, financing, or operating the district court, traffic bureau, or small claims division incurred in any other political subdivision except as provided by section 8621 and other provisions of this act.

    (3) One or more district funding units within any district may agree among themselves to share any or all of the expenses of maintaining, financing, or operating the district court. To become effective such agreements must be approved by resolution adopted by the governing body of the respective political subdivisions entering into the agreement, and upon approval such agreements shall become effective and binding in accordance with, to the extent of, and for such period stated in that agreement.

    (4) The district funding unit shall supply such law books and legal reference resources as it deems necessary. No subsidy from state funds shall be required to stock any district court created by this act with law books or other legal reference works.

History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 235, Eff. Jan. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 127, Imd. Eff. May 22, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 374, Imd. Eff. July 17, 1996

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1971–2016 · leading case: Judges of the 74th Judicial District v. Bay County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Judges of the 74th Judicial District v. Bay County (1971) mich · cites it 6× “Defendant Board of Commissioners is the governing legislative body of Bay County and as such is the district control unit of the 74th Judicial District Court, referred to in MCLA § 600.8104 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 27A.”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park (2015) michctapp · cites it 16× “Oak Park asserted that all district funding units were required, pursuant to MCL 600.8104, MCL 600.8621, and MCL 600.8271, to contribute to the expenses of the district court operating within their district.”
Kain v. State (1981) michctapp · cites it 4× “" MCL 600.8104(1); MSA 27A.8104(1). [5] In a memorandum filed with the hearing referee, the City of Grand Rapids admitted that under § 8104 it was responsible for paying "expenses, maintaining, financing and operating the district court in the city".”
Mayor of Detroit v. State (1998) michctapp · cites it 2× “555 (allowing counties to pay circuit judges an additional salary), and M.”
Dolan v. City of Ann Arbor (2009) mied · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104 (2). Plaintiff further cites a number of Michigan court decisions which, in her view, confirm that the Defendant City, and not the State of Michigan, will be responsible for paying any judgment she might obtain against the Fifteenth District Court.”
Ottawa County Controller v. Ottawa Probate Judge (1986) michctapp · cites it 2× “8263; library, MCL 600.8104; MSA 27A.8104; supplementation of judges' salary, MCL 600.”
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit (1987) mich · cites it 2× “8103(3); MCL 600.8104(1)(b); MSA 27A.8104(1)(b). Pursuant to the foregoing, the city unilaterally decided to contract with a private guard agency for the provision of court security services at the 36th District Court.”
Grand Traverse County v. State (1995) mich “MCL 600.8104; MSA 27A.8104. In yet other situations, this local funding was extended to additional aspects of court operations, such as providing facilities, 27 paying the expenses of visiting judges assigned by the Governor, 28 paying for transcripts ordered by courts in…”
Fareed v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. (2013) mied · cites it 2× “”); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104 (1) (“The term ‘district funding unit’ or ‘district control unit’ means .”
Garian v. City of Highland Park (1989) michctapp “8121(15); MCL 600.8104(1); MSA 27A.8104(1). For the first six months of 1979, the city authorized and paid plaintiff a supplemental salary (in addition to the state-provided base salary) at the rate of $17,460 per year and also provided plaintiff with various fringe benefits,…”
Cameron v. Monroe County Probate Court (1995) michctapp “8104 establishes "district control units,” which are defined as either the county, city, or township, depending on where the district court is located, and the statute provides that "a district control unit shall be responsible for maintaining, financing, and operating the court…”
Anspach v. City of Livonia (1985) michctapp “We believe that the circuit court correctly found that plaintiff had failed to state a claim against the city.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104(1) — 2 cases
Kain v. State (1981) michctapp “" MCL 600.8104(1); MSA 27A.8104(1). [5] In a memorandum filed with the hearing referee, the City of Grand Rapids admitted that under § 8104 it was responsible for paying "expenses, maintaining, financing and operating the district court in the city".”
Garian v. City of Highland Park (1989) michctapp “8121(15); MCL 600.8104(1); MSA 27A.8104(1). For the first six months of 1979, the city authorized and paid plaintiff a supplemental salary (in addition to the state-provided base salary) at the rate of $17,460 per year and also provided plaintiff with various fringe benefits,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104(1)(b) — 1 case
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit (1987) mich “8103(3); MCL 600.8104(1)(b); MSA 27A.8104(1)(b). Pursuant to the foregoing, the city unilaterally decided to contract with a private guard agency for the provision of court security services at the 36th District Court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104(2) — 5 cases
Kain v. State (1981) michctapp “" MCL 600.8104(1); MSA 27A.8104(1). [5] In a memorandum filed with the hearing referee, the City of Grand Rapids admitted that under § 8104 it was responsible for paying "expenses, maintaining, financing and operating the district court in the city".”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park (2015) michctapp “Oak Park asserted that all district funding units were required, pursuant to MCL 600.8104, MCL 600.8621, and MCL 600.8271, to contribute to the expenses of the district court operating within their district.”
City of Muskegon v. County of Muskegon (1975) michctapp
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park (2016) mich
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park (2016) mich
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104(3) — 1 case
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park (2015) michctapp “Oak Park asserted that all district funding units were required, pursuant to MCL 600.8104, MCL 600.8621, and MCL 600.8271, to contribute to the expenses of the district court operating within their district.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8104(l)(b) — 2 cases
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit (1987) mich “8103(3); MCL 600.8104(1)(b); MSA 27A.8104(1)(b). Pursuant to the foregoing, the city unilaterally decided to contract with a private guard agency for the provision of court security services at the 36th District Court.”
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit (1984) michctapp
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.