Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 774.4 (2026)
Repealed. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
774.4 Repealed. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981.
Repealed. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981.
Compiler's Notes:
The repealed sections pertained to complaint, warrant, reading charge to accused, arraignment, and entry of plea.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: People v. Holbrook, 128 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. 1964).
People v. Holbrook, 128 N.W.2d 484 (Mich. 1964). “The pertinent portion of CLS 1961, § 774.4 (Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 28.1195) reads as follows: "It shall not be lawful hereafter for any justice of the peace to issue warrants in any criminal cases except where warrants are requested by members of the State police or any…”
People v. Joker, 234 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “People v *437 Griswold, 64 Mich 722 ; 31 NW 809 (1887), considered an early statute, the reenactment of which is MCLA 774.4; MSA 28.1195, the counterpart of MCLA 764.”
People v. Carter, 148 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. 1967). “Where the offense is one cognizable by a justice of the peace the applicable statute was CLS 1961, § 774.4 (Stat Ann 1963 Cum Supp § 28.1195).”
People v. Byrd, 162 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “In Michigan, except where warrants are requested by members of the department of public safety for traffic or motor vehicle violations, the magistrate may not issue a warrant in any criminal case, whether the offense is or is not cognizable by a justice of the peace, until an…”
People v. Weinberg, 149 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “921) and GLS 1961, §774.4 (Stat Ann 1963 Gum Supp § 28.1195) ¶ Appellants allege two defects in the warrant: first, that it is vague and indefinite, and second, that the defendants were not charged individually in *357 separate warrants.”
People v. Nawrocki, 150 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “3 CLS 1961, §774.4 (Stat Ann 1963 Cum Supp § 28.1195), since amended lay PA 1965, No 307 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 28.”
People v. Wilson, 155 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “* CL 1948, § 774.4 was amended bj PA 1958, No 136, and bj PA 1965, No 307.”
People v. Roney, 153 N.W.2d 175 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “See CL 1948, § 774.4, as amended by PA 1965, No 307 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 28.”
People v. Pelky, 153 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “At arraignment in circuit court on March 23,1966, defendant’s counsel made a motion to dismiss because the prosecuting attorney had failed to file a timely written and signed order for the issuance of a warrant as required by CLS 1961, § 774.4, as amended by PA 1965, No 307…”
People v. France, 121 N.W.2d 476 (Mich. 1963). “" (CL 1948, § 774.4, as amended by PA 1958, No 136 [Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 28.”
People v. Jarboe, 157 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “The first theory is that the warrant issued by the justice of the peace was improper, since the local prosecuting attorney did not personally authorize its issuance, in accordance with CLS 1961, § 774.4 (Stat Ann 1963 Cum Supp § 28.1195), and that, therefore, the entire…”
Parents & Taxpayers Against Pornography v. Rockford Pub Schs Dist (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “; see also Joker, 63 Mich App 2 Plaintiffs’ counsel stated at oral argument that plaintiffs were willing to pay a security when filing the complaint, but the clerk did not know how much to charge. The fact remains, however, that a security was not paid and has not been paid.”
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.