|
TX - Licenses - § 826.031. Registration of Dogs and Cats by Local Governments. |
This Texas statute provides that the governing body of a municipality and the commissioners court of a county may adopt ordinances or rules requiring the registration of each dog and cat within the jurisdiction of the municipality or county. Fees may be collected pursuant to such ordinances to defray costs. |
|
TX - Impound - § 826.033. Restraint, Impoundment, and Disposition of Dogs and Cats. |
This Texas statute provides that a municipality or county may adopt ordinances or rules to require that each dog or cat be restrained by its owner and that any stray dog or cat be declared a public nuisance. Further, it can declare that each unrestrained dog or cat be detained or impounded by the local rabies control authority. Each stray dog or cat be impounded for a period set by ordinance or rule and a humane disposition be made of each unclaimed stray dog or cat upon its expiration. |
|
TX - Exotic pets - Subchapter A. Regulation of Keeping of Wild Animals |
In this subchapter, wild animal is defined as a nondomestic animal that the commissioners court of a county determines is dangerous and is in need of control in that county. The commissioners court of a county by order may prohibit or regulate the keeping of a wild animal in the county. A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if the person violates an order adopted under this subchapter and the order defines the violation as an offense. |
|
TX - Animal Regulation - § 215.026. Animals at Large |
This statute gives municipalities in the state of Texas to establish and regulate pounds and the running at large of horses, mules, cattle, sheep, swine or goats. The statute also allows municipalities to handle the capture, impounding, and sale of any animal at large that is in violation of this statute. Municipalities may also impose penalties on the owner of the animal that is in violation of the statute. |
|
Toledo v. Tellings |
In this Ohio case, the defendant, who owned three pit bull type dogs, was convicted in the Municipal Court, Lucas County, of violating the Toledo city ordinance that limited ownership to only one pit bull per household. On appeal by the City, the Supreme Court found the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The statutes and the city ordinance are rationally related to serve the legitimate interests of protecting Ohio and Toledo citizens.
|
|
TN - Ordinances - § 5-1-120. Dogs and cats; licenses, shelters and other animal control facilities |
This Tennessee statute outlines the broad police power counties have with respect to dog and cats. It provides that counties, by resolution of their respective legislative bodies, may license and regulate dogs and cats, establish and operate shelters and other animal control facilities, and regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals. |
|
TN - Ordinances - § 44-17-401. Use of electronic locating collars on dogs |
This Tennessee statute provides that no agency or entity of state or local government shall enact, adopt, promulgate, or enforce any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or other policy which restricts or prevents the owner of any dog from using an electronic locating collar to protect such dog from loss. |
|
The Power of Municipalities to Enact Legislation Granting Legal Rights to Nonhuman Animals Pursuant to Home Rule |
This Article broadly explores whether a state’s political subdivisions may exercise home rule jurisdiction to enact ordinances or bylaws that grant a legal right to nonhuman animals. While this Article is not premised on the granting of a specific legal right to a specific species of nonhuman animal, as such a determination will be unique to the particular municipality, it discusses why an ordinance or bylaw that enacted a law granting the right to bodily liberty to appropriate nonhuman animals within its jurisdiction would be upheld if it were challenged. |
|
Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0048 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether city ordinances are preempted by statutes that govern the treatment of animals. Specifically, the opinion discusses pigeon shoots. The opinion emphasizes that organized pigeon shoots are prohibited under Texas cruelty laws but that present wildlife laws allow the killing of feral pigeons.
|
|
Tarquinio v. City of Lakewood, Ohio (unpublished) |
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment from the court that Lakewood City Ordinance (“LCO”) 506.01, which bans pit bull dogs or those dogs with "appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of such breeds," unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution Home Rule provisions. In this motion, plaintiffs argue that LCO 506 conflicts with and impermissibly expands the provisions of Ohio Revised Code § 955.22. The court found that while § 955.22 outlines requirements that must be met by a person who houses vicious dogs, including all pit bulls, it does not explicitly permit pit bulls. The court found that the General Assembly intended to allow municipalities to regulate the possession of pit bulls.
|
