Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 170 of 1964
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1411 (2026)

Claim against government agency; limitation of actions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE


Act 170 of 1964


691.1411 Claim against government agency; limitation of actions.

Sec. 11.

    (1) Every claim against any governmental agency shall be subject to the general law respecting limitations of actions except as otherwise provided in this section.

    (2) The period of limitations for claims arising under section 2 of this act shall be 2 years.

    (3) The period of limitations for all claims against the state, except those arising under section 2 of this act, shall be governed by chapter 64 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961.

History: 1964, Act 170, Eff. July 1, 1965

Constitutionality Notes:

    This section does not deny the equal protection of the law. Forest v Parmalee, 402 Mich 348; 262 NW2d 653 (1978).

PopularName Notes:

Governmental Immunity Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: Forest v. Parmalee, 262 N.W.2d 653 (Mich. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Forest v. Parmalee, 262 N.W.2d 653 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 14× “See MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). II. FACTS 1.”
Pacini v. City of Detroit, 336 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “MCL 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). Second, the courts have ruled that the government has no immunity from liability for injuries resulting from a nuisance intentionally created or maintained.”
Robinson v. Emmet Cnty. Road Comm'n, 251 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “On January 9, 1973 the statute of limitations had already run against the State of Michigan, MCLA 691.1411(2); MSA 3.996(111)(2). On September 30, 1974 a new trial judge, who had succeeded the original judge who had resigned, denied the defendant's motion on the basis that it…”
Sziber v. Stout, 358 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 4× “1(5), asserting that the two-year statute of limitations established in MCL 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) barred the third-party complaints.”
Li v. Feldt, 487 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 3× “[2] Probably because suit was not commenced in Li until after the statute of limitations would have elapsed for the highway exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111), there is no claim before this Court that the facts of this case fall within the highway…”
Palomba v. City of East Detroit, 315 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “First, the Legislature has expressly authorized claims against a governmental agency arising out of the negligent maintenance of highways.”
Stremler v. Dep't of State Highways, 228 N.W.2d 492 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 4× “1(5), based upon MCLA 691.1411(2); MSA 3.996(111X2). Defendant also moved for summary judgment, in accordance with GCR 1963, 117.”
Busha v. Dep't of State Highways, 215 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 3× “On October 27, 1972, the Court of Claims granted defendant’s motion for an accelerated judgment because of the plaintiffs’ failure to file said claim within two years of the occurrence of the accident, as required by MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). Plaintiffs appeal to this Court…”
Bonner v. Moore, 216 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 7× “The basis for defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment was the two-year statute of limitations found at MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). In denying the motion, the trial court held that the three-year statute of limitations applied, MCLA 600.”
Li v. Wong, 413 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff now appeals and we reverse with respect to the intentional nuisance claim.”
Zimmer v. State High. Dep't, 231 N.W.2d 519 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “Since that claim was filed within the applicable two-year statute of limitations period, MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111), the summary judgment entered in defendant’s favor must be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings.”
Hobbs v. Michigan State High. Dep't, 227 N.W.2d 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) provides as follows: "(1) Every claim against any governmental agency shall be subject to the general law respecting limitations of actions except as otherwise provided in this section.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1411(1) — 1 case
Sunrise Resort Ass'n Inc v. Cheboygan Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1411(2) — 18 cases
Robinson v. Emmet Cnty. Road Comm'n, 251 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “On January 9, 1973 the statute of limitations had already run against the State of Michigan, MCLA 691.1411(2); MSA 3.996(111)(2). On September 30, 1974 a new trial judge, who had succeeded the original judge who had resigned, denied the defendant's motion on the basis that it…”
Pacini v. City of Detroit, 336 N.W.2d 882 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). Second, the courts have ruled that the government has no immunity from liability for injuries resulting from a nuisance intentionally created or maintained.”
Stremler v. Dep't of State Highways, 228 N.W.2d 492 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “1(5), based upon MCLA 691.1411(2); MSA 3.996(111X2). Defendant also moved for summary judgment, in accordance with GCR 1963, 117.”
Palomba v. City of East Detroit, 315 N.W.2d 898 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “First, the Legislature has expressly authorized claims against a governmental agency arising out of the negligent maintenance of highways.”
Sziber v. Stout, 358 N.W.2d 330 (Mich. 1984). “1(5), asserting that the two-year statute of limitations established in MCL 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) barred the third-party complaints.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1411(3) — 1 case
Bonner v. Moore, 216 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “The basis for defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment was the two-year statute of limitations found at MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111). In denying the motion, the trial court held that the three-year statute of limitations applied, MCLA 600.”
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.