Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261 (2026)

Short title; definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

DOG LAW OF 1919


Act 339 of 1919


287.261 Short title; definitions.

Sec. 1.

    (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "dog law of 1919".

    (2) For the purpose of this act:

    (a) "Livestock" means horses, stallions, colts, geldings, mares, sheep, rams, lambs, bulls, bullocks, steers, heifers, cows, calves, mules, jacks, jennets, burros, goats, kids and swine, and fur-bearing animals being raised in captivity.

    (b) "Poultry" means all domestic fowl, ornamental birds, and game birds possessed or being reared under authority of a breeder's license pursuant to part 427 (breeders and dealers) of the natural resources and environmental protection act, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.42701 to 324.42714 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    (c) "Owner" when applied to the proprietorship of a dog means every person having a right of property in the dog, and every person who keeps or harbors the dog or has it in his care, and every person who permits the dog to remain on or about any premises occupied by him.

    (d) "Kennel" means any establishment wherein or whereon dogs are kept for the purpose of breeding, sale, or sporting purposes.

    (e) "Law enforcement officer" means any person employed or elected by the people of the state, or by any municipality, county, or township, whose duty it is to preserve peace or to make arrests or to enforce the law, and includes conservation officers and members of the state police.

    (f) "Hunting" means allowing a dog to range freely within sight or sound of its owner while in the course of hunting legal game or an unprotected animal.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 5245 ;-- CL 1948, 287.261 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 42, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 32, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1973 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 63, Imd. Eff. Feb. 26, 1996

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Hiner v. Mojica
Hiner v. Mojica (2006) michctapp “COMMON-LAW ACTIONS AGAINST DOG OWNERS Michigan’s Dog Law, MCL 287.261 et seq., specifically preserves “the common law liability of the owner of a dog for damages committed by it.”
Trager v. Thor (1993) michctapp · cites it 2× “By 1919 PA 339 , our Legislature enacted the Dog Law of 1919, MCL 287.261 et seq.; MSA 12.511 et seq., which, among other things, provides for the licensing of dogs, regulates the keeping of dogs, and provides a remedy for damage to livestock or poultry by dogs.”
Youngblood v. Jackson County (1970) michctapp · cites it 3× “394, supra, that the provisions of PA 1969, No 224, must be read in context with MCLA § 287.261 et seq. (Stat Ann 1967 Rev § 12.”
United States v. Park (2008) ca9 “2d 391, 392 (1997) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261 (2)) (emphasis omitted).”
Christopher v. Baynton (1985) michctapp “*312 Baynton is to perform his job, the ordinance grants Mr. Baynton a rather large amount of discretion in determining whether an animal is vicious and how it should be disposed of.”
People v. Bugaiski (1997) michctapp “[MCL 287.261(2); MSA 12.511(2) (emphasis added).”
Michigan Wolfdog Ass'n, Inc. v. St. Clair County (2000) mied “§§ 287.261 - 287.290, and related statutes.”
Reed v. Presque Isle County (2023) mied · cites it 6× “LAWS § 287.261 et seq., drove the 1 The extent of the Dogs’ injuries is disputed.”
People of Michigan v. Amanda Ashleigh-Marie Reed (2021) michctapp · cites it 2× “286A I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Dog Law of 1919 (the Dog Law), MCL 287.261 et seq., was neither implicitly nor explicitly repealed by the enactment of the Dangerous Animals Act (DAA), MCL 287.”
People of Michigan v. Amanda Ashleigh-Marie Reed (2021) michctapp · cites it 2× “286A I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Dog Law of 1919 (the Dog Law), MCL 287.261 et seq., was neither implicitly nor explicitly repealed by the enactment of the Dangerous Animals Act (DAA), MCL 287.”
Nathan Crandall v. Newaygo Cnty., Mich. (2024) ca6 · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261 . It is undisputed that the dogs -6- No.”
Nikita Smith v. City of Detroit, Mich. (2018) ca6 “The Michigan Dog Law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261 et seq., makes it “unlawful for any person to own any dog 6 months old or over, unless the dog is licensed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261(2) — 1 case
People v. Bugaiski (1997) michctapp “[MCL 287.261(2); MSA 12.511(2) (emphasis added).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261(2)(a) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Amanda Ashleigh-Marie Reed (2021) michctapp “286A I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Dog Law of 1919 (the Dog Law), MCL 287.261 et seq., was neither implicitly nor explicitly repealed by the enactment of the Dangerous Animals Act (DAA), MCL 287.”
People of Michigan v. Amanda Ashleigh-Marie Reed (2021) michctapp “286A I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Dog Law of 1919 (the Dog Law), MCL 287.261 et seq., was neither implicitly nor explicitly repealed by the enactment of the Dangerous Animals Act (DAA), MCL 287.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261(2)(c) — 1 case
Trager v. Thor (1993) michctapp “By 1919 PA 339 , our Legislature enacted the Dog Law of 1919, MCL 287.261 et seq.; MSA 12.511 et seq., which, among other things, provides for the licensing of dogs, regulates the keeping of dogs, and provides a remedy for damage to livestock or poultry by dogs.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.261(c) — 1 case
Reed v. Presque Isle County (2023) mied “LAWS § 287.261 et seq., drove the 1 The extent of the Dogs’ injuries is disputed.”
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.