Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.8315 (2026)
Actions prohibited; exception.
✓ 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
600.8315 Actions prohibited; exception.
Sec. 8315.
The district court shall not have jurisdiction in actions for injunctions, divorce or actions which are historically equitable in nature, except as otherwise provided by law. However, the district court has jurisdiction and power to make any order proper to fully effectuate the district court's jurisdiction and judgments.
History: Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 374, Eff. Oct. 1, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: the Meisner Law Grp. v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n, 909 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
the Meisner Law Grp. v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n, 909 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “8302 and MCL 600.8315, the district court did not have jurisdiction; therefore, jurisdiction lay in the circuit court as the court of general jurisdiction that has jurisdiction in equitable matters except as limited by Michigan's Constitution or by statute.”
Boyd v. Nelson Credit Centers, Inc, 348 N.W.2d 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “” However, MCL 600.8315; MSA 27A.8315 provides: "The district court shall not have jurisdiction in actions for injunctions, divorce or actions which are historically equitable in nature, except as otherwise provided by law.”
Paley v. Coca Cola Co., 209 N.W.2d 232 (Mich. 1973). “” MCLA 600.8315; MSA 27A.8315. The most critical provisions are C, D and E.”
People v. Keeth, 484 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 600.8315; MSA 27A.8315. Although the district court’s restoration order is essentially a mandatory injunction that historically has been considered an equitable remedy, see generally 61A Am Jur 2d, Pollution Control, § 587, pp 1019-1020; Sokel v Nickoli, 347 Mich 146 ; 79…”
VanAlstine v. Swanson, 417 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 600.8315; MSA 27A.8315. We disagree. MCL 600.”
Lesatz v. Stand. Green Meadows, 416 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “605, unlike the district court, MCL 600.8315; MSA 27A.8315. Had plaintiffs pled meritorious claims *126 for injunctive relief, we believe it would have been in the interests of judicial economy for the circuit court to also address plaintiffs’ damage issues.”
Kevinn Donovan v. Bronson Hindman (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “* * * The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction with no general equitable jurisdiction, MCL 600.8315. Plaintiff is asking the Court to use its equitable powers, that it does not have, to enforce this tree preserve.”
Twp. of Oceola v. John Nowacki (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “In this case, the circuit court was not asked to determine that Nowacki’s properties violated the blight ordinance.”
Kathryn M Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 600.8315. Nevertheless, the district court is not totally without equitable powers.”
Calvert Bail Bonds Agency LLC v. St Clair Cnty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Those 7 Notably, the 2016 case was litigated in district court, which, under MCL 600.8315, “shall not have jurisdiction in .”
Sylvia Bethea v. Sitarum Kaura (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 600.8315. In Michigan, “the long-established rule [is] that the pleadings determine the amount in controversy for purposes of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Mark Herman v. Gregory Asquith (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 600.8315. MCL 570.1118 provides as follows: (1) An action to enforce a construction lien through foreclosure shall be brought in the circuit court for the county where the real property described in the claim of lien is located.”
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.