Municipal Ordinances

Displaying 231 - 240 of 240
Titlesort descending Summary
WI - Ordinances - 59.52. County administration This Wisconsin statute provides a schedule for destruction of obsolete town records, which includes dog licenses after three years.
WI - Ordinances - 59.54. Public protection and safety This Wisconsin statute provides that a local board may enact ordinances regulating the keeping, apprehension, impounding and destruction of dogs outside the corporate limits of any city or village, but such ordinances shall not conflict with ss. 174.01 and 174.042, and such ordinances may not apply in any town that has enacted an ordinance under s. 60.23(30).
WI - Ordinances - Subchapter IV. Town Board. 60.23. Miscellaneous powers This Wisconsin statute provides that the town board may enact and enforce ordinances, and provide forfeitures for violations of those ordinances, that are the same as or similar to ordinances that may be enacted by a county to regulate dogs running at large under s. 59.54(20).
Williams v. Lexington County Bd. of Zoning Appeals Appellant sought review of the circuit court's order upholding the Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals' unanimous decision that the county zoning ordinance prohibits Appellant from operating a dog grooming business at her home. The appeals court found that the word kennel, as used in the Lexington County Zoning Ordinance for Resident Local 5 (RL5), included dog grooming. Since Appellant’s dwelling was zoned RL5 and the ordinance prohibited kennels in RL5, the appeals court upheld the circuit court’s decision.
Wilson v. City of Eagan


At issue is an Eagan, Minnesota ordinance that provides an impounded animal must be held for five days before being destroyed.  In direct contravention of the ordinance and statute, Eagan animal warden Cary Larson and police officer Robert O'Brien, in performance of their duties, intentionally killed Timothy Wilson's pet cat on the same day it was properly impounded.  By first finding that punitive damages were not precluded by statute against municipal employees, the court then examined whether punitive damages were appropriate in this case.  While the court did not find that Larson acted with malice, it did find that his conduct in violating the statute showed a willful disregard for property rights. 
WV - Licenses - § 7-7-6d. Collection of head tax on dogs; duties of assessor and sheriff; This West Virginia statute provides that it is the duty of the county assessor at the time of assessment of the personal property within such county, to assess and collect a head tax of one dollar on each male or spayed female dog and of two dollars on each unspayed female dog. In addition to the above, the assessor and his deputies shall have the further duty of collecting any such head tax on dogs as may be levied by the ordinances of each and every municipality within the county. The tax also serves the function of providing a registration for the dog. Any person who refuses to pay the tax after a specified period may have his or her dog seized, which may then be sold or eventually destroyed.
WV - Ordinances - § 19-20A-8. Vaccinated dogs and cats may run at large; confinement may be required This West Virginia statute provides that dogs or cats vaccinated in compliance with the provisions of this article may run at large in any area or locality unless a county commission or a municipality has adopted and enforced ordinances to prevent dogs from running at large. The state commissioner of agriculture may also enforce an at large ban when a rabies quarantine is in effect. However, any county commission or municipality may not adopt any ordinance which purports to keep any vaccinated dog from running at large while engaged in any lawful hunting activity; from running at large while engaged in any lawful training activity; or from running at large while engaged in any lawful herding or other farm related activity.
WY - Ordinances - § 11-31-301. Public nuisance; notice; penalties; rules and regulations; This Wyoming statute provides that a board of county commissioners may declare the running at large of any specified animals in unincorporated areas within the county limits a public nuisance. Dogs or other animals, whose ownership cannot be determined, may be destroyed. A dog injuring or killing livestock may be killed by the owner of the livestock or his agent or any peace officer. However, any dog attacking any person in a vicious manner may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal control officer and held in quarantine for at least fifteen (15) days and not more than twenty (20) days after the attack to determine whether the dog has any disease which may be communicated to humans. A board of county commissioners may enact regulations relative to dogs running at large, vicious dogs, dogs running wild game or livestock or acts by other animals which shall carry out the purposes of this section. The county may also establish a county license fee and an animal control program/facility.
Youngstown v. Traylor
Defendant was charged with two misdemeanors after his unrestrained Italian Mastiff/Cane Corso dogs attacked a wire fox terrier and its owner.

 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that YCO 505.19(b) is unconstitutional and a violation of his procedural due process rights.

 

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the


Youngstown


municipal ordinance was constitutional because it was “rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in protecting citizens from vicious dogs,” provided “the dog owner with a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the dog's classification,” and did not “label dogs as dangerous or vicious” solely based on their breed type.
Zageris v. Whitehall


The single-family residence property owner and owner of dogs kept on property filed suit for declaratory judgment, petition for habeas corpus, and civil rights claims against city based on city's enforcement of ordinance prohibiting number of dogs on property.  He then appealed the ruling in favor for the city.  The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the local ordinance limiting number of dogs on single family property was a nuisance and not zoning measure and consequently a valid exercise of city's police power.

Pages