Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.1 (2026)
Uniform criminal extradition act; definitions.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT
Act 144 of 1937
780.1 Uniform criminal extradition act; definitions.
Sec. 1.
Definitions. Where appearing in this act, the term "governor" includes any person performing the functions of governor by authority of the law of this state. The term "executive authority" includes the governor, and any person performing the functions of governor in a state other than this state. The term "state," referring to a state other than this state, includes any other state or territory, organized or unorganized, of the United States of America.
History: 1937, Act 144, Eff. Oct. 29, 1937 ;-- CL 1948, 780.1
Compiler's Notes:
The catchlines following the act section numbers were incorporated as part of the act as enacted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2021 · leading case: Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978).
Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978). “He then petitioned the arraigning court for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the extradition warrant was invalid because it did not comply with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.”
People v. Martin, 192 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. 1971). “Martin contests his conviction on three grounds: 1) the Indiana waiver of extradition signed by him is invalid for failure to comply with MCLA § 780.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.”
Deur v. Newaygo Sheriff, 362 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. 1985). “MCL 780.1 et seq.; MSA 28.1285(1) et seq.”
People v. Monasterski, 307 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “cle IV(c) is violated: "[I]n the event that an action on the indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in Article III or Article IV hereof, the appropriate court of jurisdiction…”
Buback v. Governor, 156 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. 1968). “), nor should it be construed that only the governor, or the lieutenant governor in the absence of the governor from the State, must conduct such hearing in person where authority to delegate within the executive branch of government is provided by statute as is exemplified by…”
Brown v. Wayne Cnty. Sheriff, 330 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. 1982). “MCL 780.1 et seq.; MSA 28.1285(1) et seq.”
People v. Havey, 160 N.W.2d 629 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “) CL 1948, § 780.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.1285[1] et seq.”
Williams v. Wayne Cnty. Sheriff, 235 N.W.2d 552 (Mich. 1975). “The Governor of North Carolina sent a requisition under state seal to Michigan, certifying as authentic the solicitor’s application for requisition and the indictment; 2.”
People v. Kang, 531 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “By interpreting the apprehension requirement to include arrests in other states, we are mindful of the fact that the production of persons from one state to another is now routinely accomplished pursuant to either the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, MCL 780.1 et seq.; MSA…”
Williams v. North Carolina, 189 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). “On September 29, 1969, the State of North Carolina filed an application for requisition *122 of plaintiff as a fugitive from justice pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, MCLA § 780.1, et seq. (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.”
In re Boynton, 840 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “An issue of first impression in this case is whether the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted in Michigan (MCL 780.1 et seq.), applies to juveniles charged with delinquent behavior in another state.”
People v. Donaldson, 302 N.W.2d 592 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “13 MCL 780.1 et seq.; MSA 28.1285(1) et seq.”
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.