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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8311 (2026)

District court; 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


600.8311 District court; jurisdiction.

Sec. 8311.

    The district court has jurisdiction of all of the following:

    (a) Misdemeanors punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or both.

    (b) Ordinance and charter violations punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both.

    (c) Arraignments, the fixing of bail and the accepting of bonds.

    (d) Probable cause conferences in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court and all matters allowed at the probable cause conference under section 4 of chapter VI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 766.4.

    (e) Preliminary examinations in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court and all matters allowed at the preliminary examination under chapter VI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 766.1 to 766.22. There shall not be a preliminary examination for any misdemeanor to be tried in a district court.

    (f) Circuit court arraignments in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court under section 13 of chapter VI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 766.13. Sentencing for felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by the district court shall be conducted by a circuit judge.

History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 261, Eff. Sept. 1, 1969 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 124, Imd. Eff. May 20, 2014

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 2 of Act 124 of 2014 provides:

    "Enacting section 2. This amendatory act applies to cases in which the defendant is arraigned in the district court or the municipal court on or after January 1, 2015."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · 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 2× “See MCL 600.8311 (giving the district court jurisdiction over “[m]isdemeanors punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year”; “[o]rdinance and charter violations punishable by a fine or imprisonment”; “[a]rraignments, the fixing of bail and the accepting of bonds”;…”
People v. Houthoofd, 487 Mich. 568 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “1645 apply only to “civil actions” in district courts, yet apply to both civil and criminal actions in circuit courts? I also note that MCL 600.8311(d) gives district courts jurisdiction over preliminary examinations “in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by…”
People v. Eason, 458 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 2× “[34] See MCL 600.8311(a); MSA 27A.8311(a). [35] Although a "misdemeanor" when the liquor law was initially enacted, a first offense was not cognizable by a justice of the peace — and the defendant was entitled to a preliminary examination — because the maximum penalty for a…”
Crampton v. 54-A Dist. Judge, 245 N.W.2d 28 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 2× “[23] MCLA 600.8311; MSA 27A.8311. [24] MCLA 725.”
People v. Taylor; People v. Watkins, 316 Mich. App. 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 600.8311(e). “If, after considering the evidence, the court determines that probable cause exists to believe both that an offense not cognizable by the district court has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the court must bind the defendant over for trial.”
People v. Kretchmer, 272 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 2× “MCL 600.8311(b); MSA 27A.8311(b). Jurisdiction over circuit-court misdemeanors [1] The Court of Appeals opinion in this case raises the "allocation of jurisdiction" question.”
People v. Tesen, 739 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “See MCL 600.8311(d) (district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which includes jurisdiction over preliminary examinations in felony cases).”
People v. Ramos, 424 N.W.2d 509 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “The district court's criminal jurisdiction is set forth in MCL 600.8311; MSA 27A.8311. [23] "No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.”
People v. Laws, 554 N.W.2d 586 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “(b) Ordinance and charter violations punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both.”
People v. Milton, 224 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. 1974). “” MCLA 600.8311; MSA 27A.8311. 5 MCLA 760.1 etseq.”
People v. Reid, 795 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Once that occurred and only a misdemeanor charge that came within the district court’s jurisdiction under MCL 600.8311 remained, we believe that under Veling the appropriate course of action for the circuit court was to remand the matter to the district court rather than for the…”
People v. Burrill, 214 N.W.2d 823 (Mich. 1974). “MCLA 600.8311; MSA 27A.8311. As to preliminary examinations in the recorder’s court see People v Barbara (on rehearing), 390 Mich 377 ; 214 NW2d 833 (1974).”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8311(a) — 10 cases
People v. Eason, 458 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1990). “[34] See MCL 600.8311(a); MSA 27A.8311(a). [35] Although a "misdemeanor" when the liquor law was initially enacted, a first offense was not cognizable by a justice of the peace — and the defendant was entitled to a preliminary examination — because the maximum penalty for a…”
City of Ctr. Line v. 37th Dist. Judges, 271 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. 1978).
People v. Keeth, 484 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
People v. Reid, 795 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Once that occurred and only a misdemeanor charge that came within the district court’s jurisdiction under MCL 600.8311 remained, we believe that under Veling the appropriate course of action for the circuit court was to remand the matter to the district court rather than for the…”
Ireland v. Tunis, 893 F. Supp. 724 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8311(b) — 5 cases
People v. Kretchmer, 272 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. 1978). “MCL 600.8311(b); MSA 27A.8311(b). Jurisdiction over circuit-court misdemeanors [1] The Court of Appeals opinion in this case raises the "allocation of jurisdiction" question.”
People v. West, 221 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
People v. Kretchmer, 239 N.W.2d 658 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).
People v. Davenport, 215 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
People v. Stiff, 475 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8311(c) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Nathaniel Ward (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Terrell 249642 v. Gettings (W.D. Mich. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8311(d) — 4 cases
People v. Houthoofd, 487 Mich. 568 (Mich. 2010). “1645 apply only to “civil actions” in district courts, yet apply to both civil and criminal actions in circuit courts? I also note that MCL 600.8311(d) gives district courts jurisdiction over preliminary examinations “in all felony cases and misdemeanor cases not cognizable by…”
People v. Tesen, 739 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “See MCL 600.8311(d) (district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which includes jurisdiction over preliminary examinations in felony cases).”
People v. Barbara, 214 N.W.2d 833 (Mich. 1974).
Goliday 809669 v. Rewerts (W.D. Mich. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8311(e) — 6 cases
People v. Taylor; People v. Watkins, 316 Mich. App. 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 600.8311(e). “If, after considering the evidence, the court determines that probable cause exists to believe both that an offense not cognizable by the district court has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the court must bind the defendant over for trial.”
Barry Ellentuck v. Jeffrey W Huntington (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Stanley Earl Davis (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
People of Michigan v. Jason David Vancoillie (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
20241218_C371144_30_371144.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
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.