REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.857 Jury trial.
Sec. 857.
(1) If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue of fact in the circuit court upon a de novo appeal from that proceeding to the circuit court, that party shall on and after January 1, 1971 have the right to demand a jury to determine that issue of fact in the probate court proceeding.
(2) When a jury is demanded pursuant to law in a proceeding in the probate court, the jury shall be summoned and selected in accordance with sections 1301 to 1354. With respect to jurors any examination, challenge, replacement, oath or other practice which is not governed by the provisions of sections 1301 to 1354 shall be governed by rules adopted by the supreme court.
(3) If a jury trial is demanded in any proceeding by a party having a right to have a jury determine an issue, the demanding party shall pay into court a jury fee in an amount equal to the jury fee required in the circuit court in the same county but not to exceed $30.00, which fee shall be paid to the county treasurer for deposit in the general fund of the county. A jury fee shall not be required from a party demanding a jury trial in the juvenile division of the probate court or under Act No. 258 of the Public Acts of 1974, as amended, being sections 330.1001 to 330.2106 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: Add. 1978, Act 543, Eff. July 1, 1979
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1993–2020 · leading case:
In Re Messer Trust, 579 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1998).
In Re Messer Trust, 579 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 11× “§ 600.857(1); *76 M.S.A. § 27A.857(1). [8] The current section provides: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue of fact in the circuit court upon a de novo appeal from that…”
In Re Martin, 504 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “5 We note, however, that MCL 600.857(1); MSA 27A.857(1) provides for the right to a jury determination in the probate court of a particular issue of fact if a party would have had a right to demand a jury to determine that issue of fact in the circuit court upon an appeal de…”
Old Kent Bank v. Remainder Beneficiaries, 457 Mich. 371 (Mich. 1998).
· cites it 11× “In 1970, the Legislature enacted the precursor to what is now MCL 600.857(1); MSA 27A.857(1). 8 The current section provides: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue of fact in…”
In Re Martin, 517 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“1 In our earlier decision we stated that any "properly preserved” request for a jury determination of factual disputes in connection with respondents’ petition for removal was to be resolved in accordance with MCL 600.857(1); MSA 27A.857(1). In re Martin, supra at 719-720.”
Elaine Steele v. Sylvester McCauley (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“] The probate court concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial on their petition: MCL 600.857(1) provides as follows: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue…”
Elaine Steele v. Sylvester McCauley (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“] The probate court concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial on their petition: MCL 600.857(1) provides as follows: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue…”
Kyle Brandon Richards v. Fox Television Station (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“002(A)(2) provides that its provisions governing the waiving of fees for indigent persons “applies only to fees required by MCL 600.857, MCL 600.880, MCL 600.880a, MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.857(1) — 6 cases
In Re Messer Trust, 579 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1998).
“§ 600.857(1); *76 M.S.A. § 27A.857(1). [8] The current section provides: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue of fact in the circuit court upon a de novo appeal from that…”
In Re Martin, 504 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
“5 We note, however, that MCL 600.857(1); MSA 27A.857(1) provides for the right to a jury determination in the probate court of a particular issue of fact if a party would have had a right to demand a jury to determine that issue of fact in the circuit court upon an appeal de…”
Old Kent Bank v. Remainder Beneficiaries, 457 Mich. 371 (Mich. 1998).
“In 1970, the Legislature enacted the precursor to what is now MCL 600.857(1); MSA 27A.857(1). 8 The current section provides: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue of fact in…”
In Re Martin, 517 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“1 In our earlier decision we stated that any "properly preserved” request for a jury determination of factual disputes in connection with respondents’ petition for removal was to be resolved in accordance with MCL 600.857(1); MSA 27A.857(1). In re Martin, supra at 719-720.”
Elaine Steele v. Sylvester McCauley (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“] The probate court concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial on their petition: MCL 600.857(1) provides as follows: If a party to a proceeding in the probate court would have had a right before January 1, 1971 to demand a jury to determine a particular issue…”
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.