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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.41 (2026)

Repealed. 2002, Act 211, Imd. Eff. Apr. 29, 2002.

✓ 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


750.41 Repealed. 2002, Act 211, Imd. Eff. Apr. 29, 2002.

    Repealed. 2002, Act 211, Imd. Eff. Apr. 29, 2002.

Compiler's Notes:

    The repealed section pertained to sale and distribution of criminal news printed matter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1996–2018 · leading case: People v. Chavis, 658 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Chavis, 658 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 5× “After waiving his right to a jury trial, defendant was convicted in a bench trial of violating MCL 750.41 la(l), which makes it a crime to intentionally make “a false report of the commission of a crime to a member of the Michigan state police, a sheriff or deputy sheriff, a…”
People v. McGee, 672 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “At a preliminary examination on June 22, 2001, defendant testified that she lied to the police when she reported that Phillips did not have permission to use her atm card, so the charge against Phillips was dismissed, and defendant was charged with making a false report of a…”
Tm v. Mz, 926 N.W.2d 900 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “For that reason, respondent cannot be said to have defamed petitioner, nor is there anything in the record to support a finding that MCL 750.41 Is was violated. MCL 750.411s(6).”
People v. Threatt, 657 N.W.2d 819 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “A jury convicted defendant of aggravated stalking, MCL 750.41 li, and the trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual *505 offender, MCL 769.”
United States v. Saunders, 59 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2003). “265, § 43 (LEXIS through June 12, 2003); Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.41 lh (LEXIS through Apr.”
Pobursky v. Gee, 640 N.W.2d 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Respondent moved to terminate the order on the ground that the petition was insufficient to justify entry of a ppo because it alleged a single, unwanted contact that did not constitute stalking as defined in MCL 750.”
Staley v. Jones, 108 F. Supp. 2d 777 (W.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.41 li(e) (1994). This stalking definition contains three elements.”
People v. Coones, 550 N.W.2d 600 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking, MCL 750.41 li; MSA 28.643(9), wilful and malicious destruction of a building resulting in damage in excess of $100, MCL 750.”
Trepanier v. Nat'l Amusements, Inc, 649 N.W.2d 754 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “See MCL 750.41 li. Moreover, in this case there is evidence of a causal connection between plaintiff’s protected activity and his termination, namely, Montgomery’s admission that plaintiff was discharged because of circumstances surrounding Heathcoat’s harassment.”
State v. Prince, 517 S.E.2d 229 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). “”); Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.41 li(2)(c) & (l)(b) (1992 & Supp.”
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.