Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.279

Killing of dog pursuing, worrying, or wounding livestock or poultry, or attacking person; damages for trespass; effect of license tag.

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

287.279 Killing of dog pursuing, worrying, or wounding livestock or poultry, or attacking person; damages for trespass; effect of license tag.

Sec. 19.

Any person including a law enforcement officer may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons, and there shall be no liability on such person in damages or otherwise, for such killing. Any dog that enters any field or enclosure which is owned by or leased by a person producing livestock or poultry, outside of a city, unaccompanied by his owner or his owner's agent, shall constitute a trespass, and the owner shall be liable in damages. Except as provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer, to kill or injure or attempt to kill or injure any dog which bears a license tag for the current year.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 5263 ;-- CL 1948, 287.279 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 42, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 32, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1973

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Hooper v. City of Detroit

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hooper v. City of Detroit (1999) mied · cites it 3× “§ 287.279, which authorizes a law enforcement officer *692 to kill a dog which the officer sees in the act of attacking persons or livestock.”

People v. Bugaiski (1997) michctapp “[MCL 287.279; MSA 12.529 (emphasis added).”

Michigan Wolfdog Ass'n, Inc. v. St. Clair County (2000) mied “§ 287.279. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that wolf-dog crosses are less likely to harm humans than non-hybrid dogs because humans are more often bitten by non-hybrid dogs.”

People of Michigan v. David Eugene Hursley (2018) michctapp · cites it 3× “50b does not prohibit the lawful killing of an animal pursuant to MCL 287.279. See MCL 750.50b(9)(e). MCL 287.”

Parkes v. Wynne (2024) mied · cites it 3× “The defendant relied on Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.279 , which allows “a law enforcement officer [to] kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, worrying, or wounding any livestock or poultry or attacking persons” with “no liability on such person in damages or otherwise,…”

McCann v. Detroit, City of (2021) mied · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.279 . Moreover, Corporal Nill also is entitled to immunity under the common law.”

Nikita Smith v. City of Detroit, Mich. (2018) ca6 “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.279 ; cf. Finley, 189 N.”

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.