Pleadings, Briefs, and Jury Charges

Navigation

Full Site Search

Loading...

The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic


World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA
Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990)

Plaintiff's Attorney:   Christopher P. Cox

Defendant's Attorney:   City Counselors' Office (St. Louis)

Topic: Dangerous Dog/Impoundment

Case File #:   904-00038

Jurisdiction:   Missouri - Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis

Year Case Filed:   1990

Name of the Document:   Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; Order


Printible Version



This action concerns the release of a dog who was impounded and classified as “dangerous” without a chance for his owner to argue against the action.  Plaintiff Malane Wilson filed a petition for a preliminary and permanent injunction, a petition for declaratory judgment, and a petition for replevin against the City of St. Louis and the Animal Regulation Center, among others.  The subject of the petitions concerned her American Pit Bull Terrier named Max who was seized by agents of the Animal Regulation Center as an apparent “dangerous dog.”  Plaintiff contends that Max’s alleged actions in killing the neighbor’s dog did not qualify under the St. Louis City Ordinance as a “dangerous dog.”  Further, plaintiff was not given any legal or administrative hearing once her dog was seized, contrary to due process requirements.  She also sought in her declaratory petition to have the ordinance declared illegal, void, and unconstitutional for its failure to adequately define “dangerous dog” and “potentially dangerous dog.”

The Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not granted.  Thus, the City was enjoined from killing or otherwise harming Max.  They were also ordered to release Max, remove his “dangerous” designation, and have him instead classified as “potentially dangerous.”  The plaintiff was required to comply with enclosure and other safety requirements for Max.

Chronology of Documents:

Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for Replevin (02/07/1990) (pdf. file 244 KB)

Order Allowing Preliminary Injunction (02/14/1990) (pdf. file 206 KB)

Top of Page