Municipal Ordinances

Displaying 1 - 10 of 240
Titlesort descending Summary
AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village.
Akron ex rel. Christman-Resch v. Akron


City of Akron, Ohio cat owners filed suit against city, its mayor, and city council president, seeking declaratory judgment that new city code sections, relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats, were unconstitutional.  After the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County granted summary judgment to defendants, the cat owners appealed.  The Court of Appeals held that the city's ordinances relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats did not violate cat owners' substantive due process rights.  Further, the ordinances which allowed a cat to be euthanized after three business days following the date of impoundment, did not violate cat owners' procedural due process rights or right to equal protection.  Finally, the ordinances, which allowed city to seize free-roaming cats in response to complaints, did not violate the Fourth Amendment and city's actions were covered by sovereign immunity.
AL - Impound - Maintenance of pound; notice of impoundment; adoption of animals. This Alabama statute provides that it is the duty of each and every county in the state to provide a suitable county pound and impounding officer for the impoundment of dogs, cats, and ferrets found running at large in violation of the provisions of this chapter. When dogs and cats are impounded and if the owner thereof is known, such owner shall be given direct notice of the impoundment of said animal or animals belonging to him; or the impounding officer may make said animal or animals available for adoption after a period of not less than seven days.
AL - Ordinances - Article 4. General Police Powers This set of statutes authorizes all cities and towns to enact local ordinances to prevent dangerous, unwholesome, or offensive conditions and to abate public nuisances.
AL - Ordinances - Article 5. Powers as to Health, Sanitation, and Quarantine This set of laws authorizes all cities and towns to regulate animals and animal related conditions that pose a threat to the public health.
AL - Ordinances - Section 11-3A-2. Powers for Public Welfare, Health, and Safety; Authorization; Scope. This statute authorizes each county commission to enact ordinances for the control of animals and animal nuisances.
AL - Public Nuisances - Chapter 10. Nuisances Menacing Public Health This set of laws lists various animal-related actions and conditions that are considered nuisances per se because of their significant public health risks. In addition, it addresses the methods by which such nuisances may be abated, up to and including the destruction of property without compensation.
American Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima

In this Washington case, plaintiff brought suit against the City of Yakima challenging an ordinance that banned “pit bulls” dogs. The Superior Court, Yakima County, granted city's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs first argued that the ordinance is vague because a person of ordinary intelligence cannot tell what is prohibited.  The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the City used adequate standards for identification in the professional standards and illustrations to show that a particular dog meets the professional standard. Thus, the Court found that the ordinance gave sufficient notice of what was conduct prohibited. Summary judgment for the City was affirmed.
American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.


Associations of dog owners sued Dade, County, Florida seeking declaratory judgment that an ordinance that regulated “pit bull” dogs was unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs contend that there is no such breed as a pit bull, but rather a three breeds that this ordinance has mistakenly lumped together. The District Court held that ordinance sufficiently defined “pit bull” dogs by specifically referencing three breeds recognized by kennel clubs, including a description of the characteristics of such dogs, and provided a mechanism for verification of whether a particular dog was included. The uncontradicted testimony of the various veterinarians reflected that most dog owners know the breed of their dog and that most dog owners look for and select a dog of a particular breed.
AR - Ordinances - § 14-16-701. River and improvement district This Arkansas statute provides that, upon the written request of the governing body of a suburban improvement district (as defined by statute), a county may by ordinance control and regulate dogs and cats within all or any part of the suburban improvement district. This statute does not elaborate on the confines of such ordinances, so it is assumed the subject matter is constrained only through preemption.

Pages