Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.14 (2026)

Repealed. 2023, Act 11, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024

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

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.14 Repealed. 2023, Act 11, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024

    Repealed. 2023, Act 11, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to penalties for the administration of drugs with the intent to procure a miscarriage.

Constitutionality Notes:

    Section held unconstitutional as relating to abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy as authorized by the pregnant woman's attending physician in the exercise of the physician's medical judgment. People v Bricker, 389 Mich 524; 208 NW2d 172 (1973).

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 34 of Ch. 153 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5744; CL 1871, § 7543; How., § 9108; CL 1897, § 11503; CL 1915, § 15225; CL 1929, § 16741; sec. 35 of Ch. 153 of R.S. 1846; Act 61 of 1867; CL 1871, § 7544; How., § 9109; CL 1897, § 11504; CL 1915, § 15226; and CL 1929, § 16742.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1950–2019 · leading case: People v. Higuera, 625 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Higuera, 625 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 36× “MCL 750.14; MSA 28.204 states: Any person who shall wilfully administer to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, substance or thing whatever, or shall employ any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the…”
Evans v. Kelley, 977 F. Supp. 1283 (E.D. Mich. 1997). · cites it 10× “§ 750.14. Defendants contend that “[t]he Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of existing law and harmonize proposed legislation of existing law.”
People v. Nixon, 201 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 30× “Robert Nixon, a licensed physician, was found guilty by a jury of the felony of abortion contrary to MCLA 750.14; MSA 28.204. [1] Defendant Nixon argues on appeal, as he did before the trial court, that the Michigan abortion statute is unconstitutional because it is vague in the…”
People v. Perkins, 703 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “Examples are: MCL 750.14, MCL 750.42b(2), MCL 750.50(2)(g), MCL 750.”
Mahaffey v. Attorney Gen., 564 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “See MCL 750.14; MSA 28.204. The drafters of a constitutional provision are presumed to have known the existing laws and to have drafted the provision accordingly.”
Doe v. Dir. of the Dep't of Soc. Servs., 468 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “*500 MCL 750.14, 750.15, 750.322, 750.323; MSA 28.”
People v. Bricker, 201 N.W.2d 647 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 10× “Defendant claims that the Michigan abortion statute, MCLA 750.14; MSA 28.204, is unconstitutional in that it deprives the woman upon whom the abortion is performed of certain constitutionally guaranteed rights, and that the statute is vague in the constitutional sense.”
Woll v. Attorney Gen., 297 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 2× “Finally, the Court declared that an "exhibitor's doubts as to whether a borderline film may be shown in his theater, as well as in theaters licensed for adult presentations, [did not involve] the kind of threat to the free market in ideas and expression that justifies the…”
Larkin v. Wayne Prosecutor, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). · cites it 6× “*537 MCLA 750.14 — CRIMINAL MISCARRIAGE MCLA 750.”
People v. Bricker, 208 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. 1973). · cites it 2× “Under the principles enunciated therein, our criminal abortion statute (MCLA 750.14; MSA 28.204) cannot stand as relating to abortions in the first trimester of a pregnancy as authorized by the pregnant woman’s attending physician in exercisé of his medical judgment.”
People v. Marra, 183 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 4× “1) Did the trial court err in refusing defendant's request for a jury instruction to the effect that in order to find the defendant guilty they must find there was a living being within the uterus of the complainant at the time of the alleged act of abortion? *5 MCLA § 750.14…”
Mitchell Fam. Plan. Inc. v. City of Royal Oak, 335 F. Supp. 738 (E.D. Mich. 1972). · cites it 3× “§ 750.14, M.C.L.A. § 750.15, and M.C.L.A.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
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.