Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.3l (2026)
“Person” defined.
✓ 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
8.3l “Person” defined.
Sec. 3l.
The word "person" may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, as well as to individuals.
History: Add. 1959, Act 189, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1959
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Peters v. Golds, 366 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Mich. 1973).
Peters v. Golds, 366 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Mich. 1973). “Michigan case law has not provided specific guidance in determining how the special accrual provision relating to malpractice should be applied to services rendered by a professional corporation.”
Cindy Schaaf v. Charlene Forbes (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “The majority relies upon the definition of “person” in MCL 8.3l to conclude that use of the word “persons” in MCL 554.”
Cindy Schaaf v. Charlene Forbes (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” MCL 8.3l states that “[t]he word ‘person’ may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate, as well as to individuals.”
Stephen Lacey v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “” However, MCL 8.3l—which predates the no-fault act2—provides that, in construing statutory language, MCL 8.”
Stephen Lacey v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “” However, MCL 8.3l—which predates the no-fault act2—provides that, in construing statutory language, MCL 8.”
O Heather Malone v. Conor Thompson McRell (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Plaintiff argues that this change is significant because the term “persons” implies that the statute encompasses all individuals and corporate bodies, MCL 8.3l, including those who would only be liable under a theory of respondeat superior.”
In Re Contempt of Marlena Pavlos-Hackney (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “MDARD produced evidence of its actual costs incurred as a result of appellants’ contemptuous conduct, and appellants have never challenged such evidence.”
Nonhuman Rights Proj. Inc v. Deyoung Fam. Zoo LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “303(B), a habeas action “may be brought by the prisoner or by another person on the prisoner’s behalf.” And “[t]he word ‘person’ may extend and be applied to bodies politic and -9- corporate, as well as to individuals,” MCL 8.”
Aroma Wines & Equip. Inc v. Columbian Distrib. Servs. Inc (Mich. 2015). “2919a are corporations does not alter the foregoing analysis. 9 Aroma’s second amended complaint alleges that Columbian “converted [Aroma’s] wine inventory to its own use” and that, as a result, MCL 600.”
Aroma Wines & Equip. Inc v. Columbian Distrib. Servs. Inc (Mich. 2015). “2919a are corporations does not alter the foregoing analysis. 9 Aroma’s second amended complaint alleges that Columbian “converted [Aroma’s] wine inventory to its own use” and that, as a result, MCL 600.”
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.