|
TX - Ordinances - § 1.08. Preemption |
This law provides for preemption of state criminal laws over the laws enacted by governmental subdivisions or agencies. |
|
UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 |
This amendment affects the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Amendment Act allows a court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to destroy a prohibited dog (e.g., a "pit bull" type dog, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, or any dog with the physical appearance, not necessarily breed, of a fighting dog).
|
|
UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 |
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.
|
|
University Towers Associates v. Gibson |
In this New York case, the petitioner, University Towers Associates commenced this holdover proceeding against the rent-stabilized tenant of record and various undertenants based on an alleged nuisance where the tenants allegedly harbored pit bulls. According to petitioner, the pit bull is an alleged “known dangerous animal” whose presence at the premises creates an threat. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that the landlord's notice of termination did not adequately apprise the tenant of basis for termination; further, the notice of termination and the petition in the holdover proceeding did not allege objectionable conduct over time by the tenant as was required to establish nuisance sufficient to warrant a termination of tenancy.
|
|
UT - Breed - § 18-2-101. Regulation of dogs by a municipality |
This Utah law effective in 2015 prohibits a municipality from adopting breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs. Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs is void. |
|
UT - South Jordan - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance |
In South Jordan, Utah, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell any "pit bull terrier." There is an exception for dogs licensed prior to the effective date of the ordinance, but such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as the maintenance of $50,000 insurance for bodily injury or death. Such dogs must be properly confined or securely leashed and muzzled, and be implanted with an identification microchip. Any violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor.
|
|
Vanater v. Village of South Point |
Village criminal ordinance, which prohibited the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers or other vicious dogs within village limits, was not overbroad, even though identification of a "pit bull" may be difficult in some situations, as there are methods to determine with sufficient certainty whether dog is a "pit bull.".
|
|
WA - Buckely - Breed - Chapter 9.10 (Pit Bull Ordinance) |
In Buckely, Washington, pit bulls are defined to be “dangerous dogs." Such dogs are considered to be a public nuisance and shall be humanely destroyed or removed from the city.
|
|
WA - Cathlamet - Breed - Chapter 6.10 
PIT BULL DOGS |
It is unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog in Cathlamet, Washington, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of this chapter. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Any pit bull dog found to be the subject of a violation may be confiscated and even destroyed.
|
|
WA - Enumclaw - Breed - Chapter 7.08
 PIT BULL DOGS |
In Enumclaw, Washington, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pit bull dog, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of the ordinance. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Failure to comply may result in the humane destruction of the dog.
|
