Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3 (2026)
General rules of construction.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Revised Statutes of 1846
R.S. of 1846
8.3 General rules of construction.
Sec. 3.
In the construction of the statutes of this state, the rules stated in sections 3a to 3w shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.
History: R.S. 1846, Ch. 1 ;-- CL 1857, 2 ;-- CL 1871, 2 ;-- How. 2 ;-- CL 1897, 50 ;-- CL 1915, 64 ;-- CL 1929, 76 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 60, Imd. Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 8.3 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 100, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 76, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 189, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1959
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: In Re Dow Corning Corp., 255 B.R. 445 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
In Re Dow Corning Corp., 255 B.R. 445 (E.D. Mich. 2000). “” Joint Plan, § 8.3. The released parties include the “Shareholders” and the “Proponents”.”
In Re Dow Corning Corp., 244 B.R. 721 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999). “Pursuant to § 8.3, personal-injury claims against various parties “are deemed .”
Donkers v. Kovach, 745 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “3k may be ignored on the basis of the majority's determination of the "manifest intent of the legislature," MCL 8.3, which the majority in turn bases on the lack of text in MCL 600.”
People v. Costner, 870 N.W.2d 582 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” MCL 8.3. Here, with the definition referencing a “calendar year” and “year of our Lord,” it is clear that these definitions are only appropriate when referencing a particular date/year, not a unit or measure of time.”
Empire Iron Mining P'ship v. Orhanen, 565 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1997). “§ 8.3 et seq.; M.S.A. § 2.212 et seq. They specify that every word indicating the singular may extend to the plural, and every word indicating the plural may be applied to the singular.”
Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 1972 PA 294 (Mich. 1973). “[8] MCLA 8.3; MSA 2.212, reads: "In the construction of the statutes of this state the rules stated in sections 3a to 3w shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.”
In Re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 Pa 71, 740 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2007). “[22] Moreover, MCL 8.3 indicates that MCL 8.3u is to be observed "unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.”
Twp. of Casco v. Sec'y of State, 701 N.W.2d 102 (Mich. 2005). “" [58] We went on to hold that MCL 8.3 "provides that the rule stated in § 3b shall be observed `unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature.”
Great Lakes Soc'y v. Georgetown Charter Twp., 761 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Section 8.3(A) of the Georgetown Charter Township zoning ordinances permits construction of “churches” in a residential district with a special use permit (SUP).”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “Moreover, MCL 8.3; MSA 2.212 provides that the rule stated in § 3b shall be observed “unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature.”
G C Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co., 662 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 2003). “Indeed, the statutory construction rules, MCL 8.3 et seq., provide a compelling justification, if any were needed, for hewing closely to the common meaning of the words employed in a statute: The Legislature is drafting its statutes in reliance that courts will follow the…”
Elias Bros. Restaurants, Inc. v. Treasury Dep't, 549 N.W.2d 837 (Mich. 1996). “The question before this Court is whether Elias Brothers is an industrial processor engaged in industrial processing, or is a mere retailer, when its Commissary processes goods for company-owned stores.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(1) — 1 case
Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F. Supp. 994 (W.D. Mich. 1966).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(12) — 1 case
Krum v. Sheppard, 255 F. Supp. 994 (W.D. Mich. 1966).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(A) — 1 case
Great Lakes Soc'y v. Georgetown Charter Twp., 761 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Section 8.3(A) of the Georgetown Charter Township zoning ordinances permits construction of “churches” in a residential district with a special use permit (SUP).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(a) — 4 cases
Weidman v. Brandon Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 371 N.W.2d 910 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
Trugreen Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Treasury (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Tanisha Smith v. Lulu Lemon LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Lilbert Harris Gregory (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(b) — 1 case
Empire Iron Mining P'ship v. Orhanen, 565 N.W.2d 844 (Mich. 1997). “§ 8.3 et seq.; M.S.A. § 2.212 et seq. They specify that every word indicating the singular may extend to the plural, and every word indicating the plural may be applied to the singular.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(d) — 1 case
In Re Dow Corning Corp., 255 B.R. 445 (E.D. Mich. 2000). “” Joint Plan, § 8.3. The released parties include the “Shareholders” and the “Proponents”.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(e) — 1 case
Fitness Int'l LLC v. Cole La Bloomfield Hills (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3(u) — 1 case
West Mi Annual Conf of the United Methodist Church v. Grand Rapids (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
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.