MI PT Juris study materials
MI PT Juris study resources

MI PT Juris: Civil Procedure and Jurisdiction in Michigan Personal Injury Actions

MI PT Juris · Work through your exam, one topic at a time.

All guide sections

Civil Procedure and Jurisdiction in Michigan Personal Injury Actions

What this domain tests

Procedure questions in Michigan personal injury litigation cluster around three gates: the right court (subject-matter jurisdiction and venue), proper service and personal jurisdiction, and the deadline for filing and preserving claims. Expect fact patterns that hinge on a limitations period or a missed procedural step rather than on liability.

Core rules

  • Circuit court has general civil jurisdiction; district court civil jurisdiction is capped at $25,000 (MCL 600.8301).
  • Venue in tort cases lies in the county where the defendant resides, has its principal place of business, or where the cause of action arose (MCL 600.1621).
  • Personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants rests on the long-arm statute (MCL 600.705), which reaches the limits of due process; service must satisfy MCR 2.105.
  • Limitations: three years for personal injury (MCL 600.5805); two years for medical malpractice; one year for defamation. Minority or insanity tolling is governed by MCL 600.5851.
  • Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) requires no genuine issue of material fact, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
  • Case evaluation under MCR 2.403 can generate sanctions that exceed the verdict itself.

Worked example

A plaintiff is hurt in a Wayne County crash caused by a driver who lives in Oakland County but works in Wayne. Suit filed in Wayne is proper because the cause of action arose there. If the sole defendant were an Ohio corporation with no Michigan contacts, the long-arm analysis would fail and dismissal would follow no matter how convenient the venue.

Traps

Confusing venue with jurisdiction; assuming all injury claims carry three years when malpractice carries two; forgetting that the malpractice notice of intent reshapes the filing window; treating case evaluation as nonbinding advice when rejecting it carries cost sanctions.