Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 8 / R.S. of 1846
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5 (2026)

Severability.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 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


8.5 Severability.

Sec. 5.

    In the construction of the statutes of this state the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, that is to say:

    If any portion of an act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be found to be invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid portion or application, provided such remaining portions are not determined by the court to be inoperable, and to this end acts are declared to be severable.

History: Add. 1945, Act 119, Imd. Eff. Apr. 20, 1945 ;-- CL 1948, 8.5

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2011 PA 38, 806 N.W.2d 683 (Mich. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2011 PA 38, 806 N.W.2d 683 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 26× “Finally, we hold that:  Pursuant to MCL 8.5, the unconstitutional portions of 2011 PA 38 can reasonably be severed from the remainder of the act, which is constitutional with respect to all the issues raised.”
People of Michigan v. Nicholas James Patton, 925 N.W.2d 901 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “To that end, MCL 8.5 states: In the construction of the statutes of this state the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, that is to say: If any portion of an act or the application thereof…”
Maki v. City of East Tawas, 188 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 8× “" (MCLA § 8.5 [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 2.216].) II.”
Mayor of Detroit v. State, 579 N.W.2d 378 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “§ 8.5; M.S.A. § 2.216, provides: In the construction of the statutes of this state the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, that is to say: If any portion of an act or the application…”
Blank v. Dep't of Corr., 611 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 2000). · cites it 4× “bility: In the construction of the statutes of this state the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction *540 would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature, that is to say: If any portion of an act or the application thereof to any person or…”
People of Michigan v. Mohammad Masroor, 879 N.W.2d 252 (Mich. 2016). “34(2) and (3) remain in full force and effect where the defendant’s guidelines range is not dependent on judicial fact-finding, see MCL 8.5; (2) whether the prosecutor’s application asks this Court in effect to overrule the remedy in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 391 (2015),…”
In re Dow Corning Corp., 255 B.R. 445 (E.D. Mich. 2000). · cites it 3× “Section 8.5 of the Amended Plan provides for the channeling of the claims by “Non^Settling Personal Injury Claimants against the Settling Physicians and the Settling Health Care Providers (other than Malpractice Claims).”
Stone v. Williamson, 753 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “2912a(2), as written, substantially incomprehensible because (1) it either cannot be harmonized with the proximate-cause requirement of the rest of the statute or creates by implication a new cause of action contrary to common law and (2) it provides no guidance regarding its…”
Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 265 F. Supp. 2d 825 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5 (“If any portion of an act.”
People v. Skinner, 877 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Rather, MCL 8.5 provides: If any portion of an act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be found to be invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid…”
Julia Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 385 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2004). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5 . See also Maki v.”
Lenawee Cnty. Sheriff v. Police Officers Labor Council, 607 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “[Subsection 8.5(h).] Following his discharge, Nystrom pursued a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement.”
Show all 112 citing cases →
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5(1): 1 case
State High. Comm'n v. Mobarak, 211 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5(4): 1 case
Bluffs at Gull Lake LLC v. Ross Twp., No. 373193 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2025).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5(A): 1 case
Hart v. Presque Isle, Twp. of, 761 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (E.D. Mich. 2024).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5(D): 1 case
Hart v. Presque Isle, Twp. of, 761 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (E.D. Mich. 2024).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5(a): 1 case
20221229_C361288_30_361288.Opn.Pdf, No. 20221229 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 8.5(h): 1 case
Lenawee Cnty. Sheriff v. Police Officers Labor Council, 607 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “[Subsection 8.5(h).] Following his discharge, Nystrom pursued a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement.”
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.