|
Tarquinio v. City of Lakewood, Ohio (unpublished) |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.
|
|
The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners' Insurance Companies |
Part I of this article gives an overview of the problem: dog breed discrimination by insurers, as well as a related problem of breed-specific legislation by some states. Part II analyzes the major scientific studies on dog bites, showing that no one has adequately proven that some breeds are more inherently dangerous than others. Part III shows that breed discrimination and breed-specific legislation are opposed by most veterinary and animal groups. Part IV demonstrates that insurers have been ignoring the unique and special role that pets play in millions of American homes. Part V shows how the insurance industry is a highly regulated industry which subjects itself to legislative control where, as here, the public is being harmed by underwriting decisions not driven by actuarial justification.
|
|
The Post-Conviction Remedy for Pit Bulls: What Today’s Science Tells Us About Breed-Specific Legislation |
This Article examines the pseudo-science used in the past, the science we have today, and how “pit bulls” are among the more popular breeds adopted from animal shelters safely living in communities nationwide, yet are targeted with specific legislation in many municipalities. Distinguished from criminal eyewitness identification cases, this Article looks at the breed-specific legislation issue in terms of the entire breed being convicted on eyewitness testimony, not on a case-by-case basis like we see in criminal cases. Because breed-specific legislation targets an entire population of family pets based on breed, this Article argues for a better examination of the reliability of breed identification and the science used to uphold the constitutionality of the legislation. |
|
TN - Dyer - Breed - Ordinance 2007-157 (An Ordinance To Regulate The Keeping of Pit Bulls and Other Vicious Dogs) |
In Dyer, Tennessee, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a pit bull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered as of the date this ordinance was adopted. The owners of such dogs must comply with certain requirements, such as physical restraint or proper confinement of the dog, use of a muzzle on the dog, the posting of a “Beware of Dog” sign, the keeping of $100,000) liability insurance, and the taking of photographs for identification purposes. Dogs not kept according to the requirements may be impounded.
|
|
TN - Selmer - Breed - Chapter 3. Pit Bulls. |
In Selmer, Tennessee, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, exercise control over, maintain, transport, sell, or possess a pit bull dog. Any person owning such dogs at the time this chapter was adopted had 90 days to comply. The police may seize and impound any pit bull dog within the corporate limits of Selmer. A violation may result in a fine of $50.
|
|
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.
|
|
Toledo v. Tellings - Reversed - 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007) |
Reversed
-
871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007). In this Ohio case, defendant, who owned three pit bull type dogs, was convicted in the Municipal Court of violating city ordinance limiting ownership to only one pit bull per household, and of violating statute requiring owner of a "vicious dog" to provide liability insurance. On appeal, the court held that the statute requiring an owner of a pit bull to provide liability insurance was unconstitutional. Further, the statute, which provides that the ownership of a pit bull is prima facie evidence of the ownership of a vicious dog, was unconstitutional because after hearing evidence the trial court found that pit bulls as a breed are not inherently dangerous. Thus, the court held that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutional, since it has no real and substantial relationship to a legitimate state interest.
|
|
Tracey v. Solesky |
In this Maryland case, the Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog
and
also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. In doing so, the Court now holds that because of the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous." Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that an attacking dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, a person who knows that the dog is of the pit bull breed, including a landlord, is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff who was attacked. The case was remanded to trial court with this modification to common law.
This opinion was Superseded by
Tracey v. Solesky
, 427 Md. 627 (Md., 2012).
|
|
Tracey v. Solesky |
In this Maryland case, the Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog and also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. In doing so, the Court now holds that because of the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous." Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that an attacking dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, a person who knows that the dog is of the pit bull breed, including a landlord, is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff who was attacked. The case was remanded to trial court with this modification to common law.
|
|
TX - Dangerous - Subchapter D: Dangerous Dogs |
Chapter 822, Subchapter D addresses dangerous dogs and their treatment, including dog attacks, registration, defenses, violations of the statute. |
