2011 House Bill 5124 / 2012 Public Act 338

Require judges to adopt “concurrent jurisdiction” plans

Introduced in the House

Oct. 26, 2011

Introduced by Rep. Kevin Cotter (R-99)

To require district, circuit and probate judges within a county or judicial circuit to adopt a “concurrent jurisdiction” plan for the various types of judges, and if they do not, empower the Supreme Court to impose one.

Referred to the Committee on Judiciary

May 24, 2012

Reported without amendment

With the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

May 30, 2012

Substitute offered

To not require concurrent jurisdiction if a majority of judges in a circuit and district vote not to do it.

The substitute passed by voice vote

Amendment offered by Rep. Kurt Heise (R-20)

To clarify a detail related to a district or circuit judge's "power of appointment" under a concurrent jurisdiction plan already approved by the state Supreme Court.

The amendment passed by voice vote

May 31, 2012

Passed in the House 67 to 43 (details)

To revise details of the procedures by which district, circuit and probate judges within a county or judicial circuit adopt a “concurrent jurisdiction” plan for the various types of judges.

Received in the Senate

June 5, 2012

Referred to the Committee on Judiciary

Aug. 15, 2012

Reported without amendment

With the recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill then pass.

Sept. 11, 2012

Amendment offered

To require that if the judges in a judicial circuit choose not to adopt a concurrent jurisdiction plan they must submit an explanation of why not to the state court administrator, and the reasons must reflect an assertion in the bill that such plans are for the benefit of the citizens and not the judges.

The amendment passed by voice vote

Sept. 12, 2012

Passed in the Senate 38 to 0 (details)

To revise details of the procedures by which district, circuit and probate judges within a county or judicial circuit adopt a “concurrent jurisdiction” plan for the various types of judges. Judges in a circuit choosing not to do this would have to submit an explanation to the state court administrator, with reasons reflecting an assertion in the bill that such plans are for the benefit of the citizens and not the judges.

Received in the House

Sept. 12, 2012

Sept. 27, 2012

Passed in the House 78 to 30 (details)

To concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.

Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder

Oct. 16, 2012