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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h (2026)

Civil remedies.

✓ 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


750.539h Civil remedies.

Sec. 539h.

    Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies:

    (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping.

    (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops.

    (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.

History: Add. 1966, Act 319, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: McAuley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 578 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McAuley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 578 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 750.539h(c); M.S.A. § 28.807(8)(c). [9] In addition to "those costs taxable in any civil action.”
Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 427 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing for punitive damages).”
Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 750.539h(c); M.S.A. § 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced shall be entitled to civil remedies including punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury).”
46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford Cnty., 702 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “And in a few jurisdictions, from time to time, courts and their funding units have found themselves at loggerheads over employment issues.”
Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The pertinent counts of plaintiff's complaint were brought pursuant to MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8), which provides for *479 civil remedies for violations of the statute.”
Gamrat v. Allard, 320 F. Supp. 3d 927 (W.D. Mich. 2018). “The Michigan State Police Report of Extortion can be found at http://media.”
Nicholes v. Lorenz, 237 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 1976). “2911 and MCLA 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) in which the Legislature does provide for punitive damages.”
Navarra v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc., 510 F. Supp. 831 (E.D. Mich. 1981). · cites it 2× “539e and § 750.539h; M.S.A. *835 § 28.807(5) and § 28.”
People v. Livingston, 236 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “MCLA 750.539h (b) and (c); MSA 28.807(8)(b) and (c).”
Dickerson v. Raphael, 564 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “[MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8).] Under statute, “eavesdropping” is defined as “to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.”
Steve Maritas v. Int'l Unions (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 11× “Hickey, and Dwayne Phillips,1 alleging entitlement to civil remedies under MCL 750.539h for eavesdropping after defendants posted a photograph of Maritas online.”
Keith Edward Gardiner v. Sian Hengeveld (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Consequently, plaintiff was entitled to civil remedies under MCL 750.539h, including an injunction, actual damages, and punitive damages.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h(c) — 3 cases
McAuley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 578 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. 1998). “§ 750.539h(c); M.S.A. § 28.807(8)(c). [9] In addition to "those costs taxable in any civil action.”
Anzaldua v. Band, 578 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. 1998). “§ 750.539h(c); M.S.A. § 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced shall be entitled to civil remedies including punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury).”
46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford Cnty., 702 N.W.2d 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “And in a few jurisdictions, from time to time, courts and their funding units have found themselves at loggerheads over employment issues.”
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.