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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8251 (2026)

Places of sitting of district court; "population" defined.

✓ 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


600.8251 Places of sitting of district court; "population" defined.

Sec. 8251.

    (1) In districts of the first class, the court shall sit at each county seat. In districts of the first class consisting of 1 county having a population of 130,000 or more, the court shall also sit at each city having a population of 6,500 or more, except the court is not required to sit at any city that is contiguous to the county seat or is contiguous to a city having a greater population. The court shall also sit at other places as the judges of the district determine. The court shall sit not less than once each week in each county of a multicounty district.

    (2) In districts of the second class, except as provided in subsection (3), the court shall sit at any county seat within the district, and at each city and incorporated village within the district having a population of 3,250 or more, except that if 2 or more cities or incorporated villages are contiguous the court need sit only in the city having the greater population. The court is not required to sit in any political subdivision if the governing body of that subdivision by resolution and the court agree that the court shall not sit in the political subdivision. If the district does not contain a county seat and does not contain any city or incorporated village having a population of 3,250 or more, the court shall sit at a place or places within the district as the judges of the district determine. In addition to the place or places where the court is required to sit, the court may upon agreement of a majority of the judges of the district and upon approval by resolution of the board of commissioners also sit at the county seat of its district control unit situated outside the district, but the court shall sit not less than once each week within the district. If the district does not contain any city, the foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply to the district, and the court shall sit at the county seat of its district control unit situated outside the district. In addition to the place or places where the court is required to sit pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, the court may sit at a place or places within the district as the judges of the district determine. If the court sits at a county seat situated outside the district pursuant to this subsection, it has the same powers, jurisdiction, and venue as if sitting within the district.

    (3) In districts of the second class in a county having a population between 575,000 and 700,000, the court shall sit at any county seat within the district, and may sit at each city and incorporated village within the district having a population of 10,000 or more, except that if 2 or more cities or incorporated villages are contiguous the court need sit only in the city having the greater population. The court is not required to sit in any political subdivision if the governing body of that subdivision by resolution and the presiding judge of the court agree that the court shall not sit in the political subdivision. If the district does not contain a county seat and does not contain any city or incorporated village having a population of 10,000 or more, the court shall sit at a place or places within the district as the presiding judge of the district determines. In addition to the place or places where the court is required to sit, the court may, upon the assent of the presiding judge and approval by resolution of the board of commissioners, also sit at the county seat of its district control unit situated outside the district, but the court shall sit not less than once each week within the district. If the district does not contain any city, the foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply to the district, and the court shall sit at the county seat of its district control unit situated outside the district. In addition to the place or places where the court is required to sit pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, the court may sit at a place or places within the district as the presiding judge of the district determines. If the court sits at a county seat situated outside the district pursuant to this subsection, it has the same powers, jurisdiction, and venue as if sitting within the district.

    (4) In districts of the third class, the court shall sit at each city having a population of 3,250 or more and within each township having a population of 12,000 or more and at other places as the judges of the district determine. The court is not required to sit in any political subdivision if the governing body of that subdivision by resolution and the court agree that the court shall not sit in the political subdivision.

    (5) Each judge of the district shall sit at places within the district as the presiding judge designates.

    (6) A district judge or district court magistrate may sit at a place outside the district under a multiple district plan pursuant to section 8320.

    (7) As used in this section, "population" means population according to the most recent federal decennial census, except that the most recent census shall not apply until the expiration of 18 months from the date on which the census is taken.

History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 6, Imd. Eff. Apr. 19, 1969 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 238, Eff. Jan. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 135, Imd. Eff. May 27, 1988 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 5, Imd. Eff. Feb. 24, 1994 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 7, Imd. Eff. May 20, 2003 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 309, Imd. Eff. Dec. 17, 2010

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 2 of Act 135 of 1988 provides:

    “Any additional district judgeship to be added by election in 1988 shall not be authorized to be filled by election unless each district control unit of the district, by resolution adopted by the governing body of the district control unit, approves the creation of that judgeship and unless the clerk of each district control unit adopting such a resolution files a copy of the resolution with the state court administrator not later than 4 p.m. of the tenth Tuesday preceding the August primary for the election to fill the additional district judgeship.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1970–2015 · leading case: City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 6× “MCL 600.8251, subds (1) and (2); MSA 27A.”
City of Rockford v. 63rd Dist. Court, 781 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 15× “Our Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the phrase “shall sit” required the 37th District Court to remain located in Center Line on a full-time basis and held: If we were to adopt the city’s position, using the 1970 census, we would be creating many “full-time”…”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, 874 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “It also states that these judges “conferred with the appropriate offic[i]als of the City of Pleasant Ridge and with the City Commission and have agreed that the court location requirement of MCLA 600.8251(3) shall be waived and that the district court for the 45-B District shall…”
City of Ctr. Line v. Thirty-Seventh Dist. Court Judges, 253 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 600.8251(3); MSA 27A.825K3). Center Line has a population over 10,000.”
Brown v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 175 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. 1970). · cites it 2× “Supp § 600.8251 (Stat Ann. 1969 Cum Supp § 27A.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8251(2) — 2 cases
City of Rockford v. 63rd Dist. Court, 781 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Our Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the phrase “shall sit” required the 37th District Court to remain located in Center Line on a full-time basis and held: If we were to adopt the city’s position, using the 1970 census, we would be creating many “full-time”…”
Brown v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 175 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. 1970). “Supp § 600.8251 (Stat Ann. 1969 Cum Supp § 27A.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8251(3) — 3 cases
City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978). “MCL 600.8251, subds (1) and (2); MSA 27A.”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, 874 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “It also states that these judges “conferred with the appropriate offic[i]als of the City of Pleasant Ridge and with the City Commission and have agreed that the court location requirement of MCLA 600.8251(3) shall be waived and that the district court for the 45-B District shall…”
City of Ctr. Line v. Thirty-Seventh Dist. Court Judges, 253 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “MCLA 600.8251(3); MSA 27A.825K3). Center Line has a population over 10,000.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8251(4) — 2 cases
City of Rockford v. 63rd Dist. Court, 781 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Our Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the phrase “shall sit” required the 37th District Court to remain located in Center Line on a full-time basis and held: If we were to adopt the city’s position, using the 1970 census, we would be creating many “full-time”…”
City of Huntington Woods v. City of Oak Park, 874 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “It also states that these judges “conferred with the appropriate offic[i]als of the City of Pleasant Ridge and with the City Commission and have agreed that the court location requirement of MCLA 600.8251(3) shall be waived and that the district court for the 45-B District shall…”
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.