Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.45 (2026)

Open air assemblies; operation of aircraft; altitude.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE

Act 328 of 1931

750.45 Open air assemblies; operation of aircraft; altitude.

Sec. 45.

A person who operates an aircraft over open air assemblies of people at a height of less than 1,500 feet from the ground is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. This section does not apply to groups assembled for the purpose of witnessing aerial exhibitions and stunt flying, nor to groups assembled at a flying field.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.45 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003

FormerLaw Notes:

See sections 1 and 2 of Act 9 of 1926, Ex. Sess., being CL 1929, §§ 4822 and 4823.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: Mich. Gun Owners, Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch., 918 N.W.2d 756 (Mich. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mich. Gun Owners, Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch., 918 N.W.2d 756 (Mich. 2018). “451a did not permit a police officer to engage in the solicitation of a prostitute, there would have been no need for the Legislature to enact MCL 750.”

in Re W Minors (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “The lower courts relied on the Court of Appeals opinion in In re Cotton, 208 Mich App 180 , to conclude, in the words of the trial judge, that a petitioner’s burden under MCL 750.45 is “almost impossible.” The Court of Appeals opined that the evidence proffered by the Martins…”

20240222_C366087_50_366087.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” But the tribunals misinterpreted In re Cotton in this regard, thus effectively rendering their review under MCL 750.45 meaningless. The oft-cited portion of In re Cotton was primarily aimed at refuting the narrow question posed in that case: whether the Legislature intended…”

C in Re Jcr ii/jcr/jcr/jcr (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “” But the tribunals misinterpreted In re Cotton in this regard, thus effectively rendering their review under MCL 750.45 meaningless. The oft-cited portion of In re Cotton was primarily aimed at refuting the narrow question posed in that case: whether the Legislature intended…”

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.