Municipal Ordinances

Displaying 31 - 40 of 240
Titlesort descending Summary
City of Rolling Meadows v. Kyle


In this Illinois case, the Plaintiff, City of Rolling Meadows, brought an action against defendant for keeping an undomesticated animal, a monkey, in her home in violation of a city ordinance. The lower court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. At issue on appeal is the construction and application to be given the phrase “other than domesticated house pets” as set forth in the ordinance in question. The court was required to adopt the common and approved usage of the term 'domesticated.' The court concluded that the evidence presented established as a matter of law that Yondi is a domesticated animal. Thus, the trial court erred in finding defendant in violation of ordinance 4-28 because the monkey was a domesticated house pet.
CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee


This Reply Brief of Appellant City of Toledo was filed for the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.
CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee.


This is the City of Toldeo's Appellant Brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.
CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee.


This Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant City of Toledo was filed for the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.
CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Defendant-Appellee.


This is the Ohio Attorney General's amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.
City of Water Valley v. Trusty
Appellants filed b

ill of complaint seeking to enjoin enforcement of city's dog leash ordinance.  The court summarily held that

Mississippi Code Annotated s 21-19-9 (1972) authorizes municipalities to regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds. The ordinance here was enacted pursuant to that authority, it meets the constitutional requirements, and the demurrer should have been sustained on that question.
CO - Impoundment - Article 15. Regulation Under Police Power. This Colorado statute immunizes the board of county commissioners or other local governing entity from liability associated with the impoundment of pet animals. Specifically, it states the board or anyone authorized to enforce a local ordinance shall not be held responsible for any accident or subsequent disease that may occur to the animal in connection with the administration of the resolution or ordinance.
CO - Ordinances - Animal control officers--Article 15. Regulation Under Police Power. This Colorado statute provides that personnel engaged in animal control may issue citations or summonses and complaints enforcing the county dog control resolution or any other county resolution concerning the control of pet animals or municipal ordinance. Officers assigned to this capacity may be referred to as "peace officers."
CO - Ordinances - Pet animal control and licensing This Colorado statute states that the board of county commissioners of any county may adopt a resolution for the control and licensing of dogs. These regulations may require licensing of dogs by owners, require that dogs and other pet animals be under control at all times and define "control," define "vicious dog" and "vicious animal," establish a dog pound, or other animal holding facility, provide for the impoundment of animals which are vicious, not under control, or otherwise not in conformity with the resolutions, and establish such other reasonable regulations and restrictions for the control of dogs and other pet animals.
Columbus v. Kim


An Ohio dog owner was convicted in the Municipal Court, Franklin County, of harboring an unreasonably loud or disturbing animal as prohibited by city ordinance. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the owner contended that the term “unreasonable” in the ordinance “does not provide enough explanation to allow the average person to know what behavior is permissible.” The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague on its face, and was not unconstitutionally vague as applied.

Pages