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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8301 (2026)

Exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions; jurisdiction over civil infraction actions.

✓ 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


600.8301 Exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions; jurisdiction over civil infraction actions.

Sec. 8301.

    (1) The district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.00.

    (2) The district court has jurisdiction over civil infraction actions.

History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 148, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 511, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 388, Eff. Jan. 1, 1998

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Hodge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 884 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hodge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 884 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 21× “1 We affirm that principle today. This case arises out of a lawsuit for no-fault damages filed in the 36th District Court.”
the Meisner Law Grp. v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n, 909 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “605 ; MCL 600.8301(1) ; Clohset v. No Name Corp.”
Moody v. Home Owners Ins., 304 Mich. App. 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 21× “00” jurisdictional limit of MCL 600.8301. The circuit court ordered that “the jury verdict and subsequent judgment.”
Etefia v. Credit Tech., Inc, 628 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “Consequently, the circuit court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiffs fcra claim and did not improperly deprive plaintiff of jurisdiction.”
Clohset v. No Name Corp., 840 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “641 and the subsequent amendment of MCL 600.8301 have on the verdict returned by the jury in this case.”
Brooks v. Mammo, 657 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “After a jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $50,000, the district court entered a judgment in the amount of $17,985, reflecting the $10,000 jurisdictional limit provided by MCL 600.8301, plus costs and interest. The district court denied plaintiffs motion for…”
Deborah Reynolds v. Robert Hasbany Md Pllc, 917 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “See MCR 7.219(A). M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and METER, JJ.”
Johnston v. Sterling Mortg. & Inv. Co., 315 Mich. App. 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “MCL 600.8301(1). In addition, district courts have “equitable jurisdiction and authority concurrent with that of the circuit court” with respect to equitable claims arising under chapter 57 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.”
Paley v. Coca Cola Co., 209 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. 1973). · cites it 5× “2 MCLA 600.8301; MSA 27A.8301. E. "Sec. 8315.”
City of Riverview v. Sibley Limestone, 716 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” MCL 600.8301(2). Because this is a civil infraction action, jurisdiction was established.”
Baxter v. Gates Rubber Co., 431 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “We read this provision to effect an allocation of most civil claims between district and circuit courts by fixing a dollar limitation as to damages.”
Yudashkin v. Holden, 637 N.W.2d 257 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “Because the amount of the liquidated damages on which the parties agreed is less than $25,000, defendants argue this case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court under MCL 600.8301. Defendants also asserted that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the…”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8301(1) — 59 cases
the Meisner Law Grp. v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n, 909 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “605 ; MCL 600.8301(1) ; Clohset v. No Name Corp.”
Hodge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 884 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. 2016). “1 We affirm that principle today. This case arises out of a lawsuit for no-fault damages filed in the 36th District Court.”
Moody v. Home Owners Ins., 304 Mich. App. 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “00” jurisdictional limit of MCL 600.8301. The circuit court ordered that “the jury verdict and subsequent judgment.”
Clohset v. No Name Corp., 840 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “641 and the subsequent amendment of MCL 600.8301 have on the verdict returned by the jury in this case.”
Deborah Reynolds v. Robert Hasbany Md Pllc, 917 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “See MCR 7.219(A). M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and METER, JJ.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8301(2) — 1 case
City of Riverview v. Sibley Limestone, 716 N.W.2d 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” MCL 600.8301(2). Because this is a civil infraction action, jurisdiction was established.”
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.