Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 | 1991 CHAPTER 65 |
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes. |
Statute | |
| UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 | 1997 CHAPTER 53 |
This amendment affects the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Amendment Act allows a court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to destroy a prohibited dog (e.g., a "pit bull" type dog, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, or any dog with the physical appearance, not necessarily breed, of a fighting dog). |
Statute | |
| TX - Forth Worth - Chapter 6. Animals and Fowl. | Sec. 6.1 to 6.86 |
The following comprises Fort Worth, Texas' animal-related ordinances. A person commits an offense if the person owns, keeps, harbors, or has custody of any female dog or cat over 6 months or of any male dog or cat over 8 months of age that is unaltered unless such person has a valid intact pet permit. Another section makes it unlawful to interfere with an animal care and control officer while engaged in the performance of his or her duties. The city outlines sanitation standards for animals kept by owners and limits the number of dogs and cats one may keep to 3 of each species. In addition, the city declares that a person who keeps a dangerous animal (as defined) other than a dog as commits a public nuisance, and outlines specific registration and enclosure requirements for dangerous animals. A subsequent section describes the dangerous dog provisions. In addition to registration, licensing, rabies vaccination, and impoundment provisions, the city has some interesting ordinances related to the keeping of miniature swine, unlawful acts of docking and cropping, and the procedure for picking up of dead animals by the city. |
Local Ordinance | |
| TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 824.001 - 004; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0065; § 62.016 | TX HEALTH & S § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0065 ; § 62.016 | These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws. | Statute |
| TX - Dangerous - § 822.0422. Reporting of Incident in Certain Counties and Municipalities | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 822.0422 | TX HEALTH & S § 822.0422 | This Texas statute outlines the procedures for reporting a dangerous dog incident in counties with a population of at least 2,800,000 in which an ordinance has been adopted pursuant to this section. It describes the reporting and seizure requirements should an owner fail to turn over an implicated dog. | Statute |
| TX - Dangerous - Subchapter D: Dangerous Dogs | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 822.041 - 047 | TX HEALTH & S § 822.041 - 047 | Chapter 822, Subchapter D addresses dangerous dogs and their treatment, including dog attacks, registration, defenses, violations of the statute. | Statute |
| TX - Dangerous - Subchapter B: Dogs That Are A Danger to Animals | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 822.011 - 013 | TX HEALTH & S § 822.011 - 013 | Subchapter B prohibits dogs from running at large and enumerates the criminal penalty for such violation. | Statute |
| TX - Dallas - Dallas City Code. Volume I. Chapter 7. Animals. | Sec. 7-1.1 - Sec. 7-8.3 |
This comprises Dallas, Texas' animal control and dangerous dog ordinances. Among the provisions is a requirement that an owner of an animal restrain the animal at all times in a fenced yard, in an enclosed pen or structure, or by a tether or leash. Other provisions of interest include an anti-trapping provision; a section that prohibits the carrying or transporting of an animal within the open bed of any moving pickup; and limitations on the number of dogs or cats that residents can maintain based on the size of the lot and proximity to other dwellings. Dallas has a mandatory spay/neuter requirement; an owner of a dog or cat commits an offense if the animal is not spayed or neutered once over six months old (subject to certain exemptions). Further, a person commits an offense if he or she breeds a dog or cat without a valid intact animal permit for the dog or cat. Other provisions include the keeping of prohibited animals, the keeping of roosters, and noise disturbances by animals. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Turner v. Ferguson | 432 F. Supp. 3d 876 (E.D. Wis. 2020) | On March 5, 2017 Lori turner was attacked by her neighbor’s (“Arndt”) dog which required her to receive 11 staples to close the wound on her scalp. She also suffered bites on her shoulder and wrist that would later require surgery. Pursuant to local regulations, the neighbor’s dog was quarantined for a ten-day period. Lori mentioned to officers that the City of Gelndale had recently enacted an ordinance that allowed for an officer to declare a dog vicious which then required the owner of the dog to adhere to certain requirements like securing the dog in a kennel when it was outdoors and maintaining liability insurance for dog bites. On March 14, 2017, Officer Ruppel issued a citation to Ardnt under a Glendale ordinance for damage caused by dogs, however, he did not declare the dog vicious under the vicious-dog ordinance. Officer Ruppel reasoned during deposition that he chose not to do so because he considered Ardnt grabbing the dog by the neck and Lori walking up and petting the dog (prior to Ardnt’s action) provocation. Lori filed suit against the officers she interacted with over the course of the next year claiming that the officers denied her equal protection of the law by refusing to declare Arndt’s dog vicious and by failing to protect her from loose dogs in the neighborhood. Lori had repeatedly contacted the police department over the course of a year about how she did not like the outcome of her dog bite case and about loose dogs in the neighborhood. Lori specifically alleged that the officers treated her with animus. The Court ultimately found that the evidence in the record did not support a class-of-one equal protection claim. Officer Ruppel’s decision to not declare Ardnt’s dog vicious was supported by a rational basis. Additionally, no evidence existed that suggested that the Glendale police department intentionally and irrationally treated Lori’s complaints about loose dogs in the neighborhood differently than it treated similar complaints by other citizens. The Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Case | |
| Trautman v. Day | 273 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 1979) |
In Trautman v. Day, 273 N.W. 2d 712 (N.D. 1979), defendant shot plaintiff’s dog when it ran through defendant’s herd of cows. The court affirmed a verdict of $300 for plaintiff’s dog. In addition, the Court declined to apply the defense of immunity based on a statute concerning the “worrying of livestock. |
Case |