Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.337 (2026)

Repealed. 2015, Act 210, Eff. Mar. 14, 2016.

✓ 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

750.337 Repealed. 2015, Act 210, Eff. Mar. 14, 2016.

Repealed. 2015, Act 210, Eff. Mar. 14, 2016.

Compiler's Notes:

The repealed section pertained to indecent language used in presence of women and children.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1990–2014 · leading case: People v. Boomer, 655 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Boomer, 655 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “MCL 750.337. The district court imposed a sentence of four days’ community service, plus fines and costs of $75 or three days in jail.”

Thomas Leonard v. Stephen Robinson, in His Individual Capacity, 477 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.337 (criminalizing the “use [of] any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child”), invalidated by People v.”

People v. Harris, 845 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 2014). “45 In Boomer, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of MCL 750.337, which provides: Any person who shall use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Prak v. Gregart, 749 F. Supp. 825 (W.D. Mich. 1990). · cites it 18× “” Mich.Comp.Laws § 750.337. The charge against plaintiff allegedly arose when she responded with the words “fuck you” 'to an insult directed at her by children of her next door neighbors.”

Leonard v. Robinson (6th Cir. 2007). “While I am prepared to accept the majority’s judgment that the application of all four statutes to Leonard violated his First Amendment rights, I am not prepared to accept its judgment that the Supreme Court, our court or the Michigan courts had clearly established the…”

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.