Municipal Ordinances
Displaying 101 - 110 of 240
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| MN - Ordinances - Chapter 347. Dogs and Cats. Dogs. | This Minnesota statute provides that state dog control laws are supplemental to local provisions enacted by ordinance and shall not be construed as to modify, repeal, or prevent municipalities from prohibiting, licensing, or regulating the running at large of dogs. |
| MN - Ordinances - Chapter 365. Town General Law. Town Meeting Powers. | Under this Minnesota statute, town electors at their annual town meeting, are empowered to exercise control over a number of activities relating to dogs. They can decide the locations of pounds, set the number of poundmasters, and discontinue a pound. The electors may make orders and bylaws on restraining horses, cattle, sheep, swine, and other domestic animals from going at large on roads. They may also make orders and bylaws on the impounding of domestic animals going at large and fix penalties for violations of the orders and bylaws. The electors may let the town board pass an ordinance for licensing dogs and cats and regulating their presence, keeping, and running at large in the town. The electors are also granted the authority to provide for a specific activity that is within any of the following categories: the promotion of health, safety, order, and convenience, and the general welfare. |
| MO - Dog Ordinances - Chapter 77. Third Class Cities. | This Missouri statute provides that a city council may tax, restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and provide for their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance, and impose penalties on the owners or keepers thereof. |
| MO - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Third Class Cities | This set of statutes authorizes municipal governments to regulate animals and animal-related nuisances. |
| MO - Ordinances - Chapter 79. Fourth Class Cities. Police and Health Regulations | This Missouri statute provides that a local board of aldermen may tax, regulate and restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and provide for their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance, and impose penalties on the owners or keepers thereof. |
| MONICA NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; MATTHEW KEITH DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; and RUBY JUDINE MALMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PAYETTE, |
District Court ruled City of Payette's pit bull ordinance's procedural aspects were unconstitutional, finding that the lack of hearing provisions for a dog that was impounded due to an attack or bite violated procedural due process. The court also found that forcing the dog owner to bear the burden of proving his or her dog's innocence violated due process. The court, however, found no constitutional infirmity with the notice procedure employed by Payette's pit bull ordinance, provided Payette adhered to Idaho Code § 25-2804. The court ordered Plaintiff Douglas’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to be granted in part and denied in part; the claims asserted against the city of Payette by Plaintiffs Monica Newman and Ruby Judine Malman to be dismissed without prejudice; and all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the city of Fruitland to be dismissed without prejudice. |
| Morawek v. City of Bonney Lake | A woman filed a complaint with the Bonney Lake animal control authority after her neighbor’s dog killed her cat. The animal control officer served plaintiff with paperwork stating that his dog satisfied the definition of a dangerous dog under the Bonney Lake Municipal Code because the dog had killed a domestic animal without provocation while off his owner's property. Plaintiff appealed the designation to the police chief, the city hearing examiner, and the superior court; all of which affirmed the designation. The Washington Court of Appeals, however, held that the hearing examiner's finding that the owner's dog killed the neighbor's cat without provocation was not supported by substantial evidence, as required to uphold a dangerous dog designation, even though the “location” element of the dangerous dog designation was satisfied. The dangerous dog designation was therefore reversed. |
| MS - Leash, Impound - Chapter 19. Health, Safety, and Welfare | This Mississippi law grants broad powers to local units of government for animal control, including the power to prevent or regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds, and to cause such as may be running at large to be impounded and sold to discharge the costs and penalties provided for the violation of such regulations and the expense of impounding and keeping and selling the same; to regulate and provide for the taxing of owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs running at large, unless such dogs have proper identification. |
| MS - Licenses - Chapter 5. Health, Safety and Public Welfare. In General | This Mississippi statute provides that the governing authorities of any county bordering on the Gulf of Mexico and having within its boundaries two cities having in excess of forty thousand (40,000) population each and any county with a population in excess of two hundred thousand (200,000) shall have the power to prevent or regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds, and to cause such as may be running at large to be impounded and sold to discharge the costs. These governing bodies are also given the authority to regulate and tax dogs generally. |
| MT - Dangerous - CHAPTER 23. DOMESTIC ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION. | This Montana statute provides that the county governing body may regulate, restrain, control, kill, or quarantine any vicious dog, whether such dog is licensed or unlicensed, by the adoption of an ordinance which substantially complies with state dangerous dog laws. |