|
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 Toledo, Appellee v. Paul Tellings, Appellant |
This Ohio case concerns a Toledo ordinance that limited the ownership of Pit Bull dogs to only one dog per household (respondent had three pit bulls). Essentially, the ordinance classifies a Pit Bull as a “vicious dog” under the vicious dog ordinance even if the dog has not engaged in aggressive or vicious behavior. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District found that the ordinance as written was constitutionally vague. The Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2007, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.
|
|
CO - Aurora - Chapter 14 - ANIMALS |
The following comprises Aurora, Colorado's animal-related ordinances. In addition to the standard ordinances dealing with number restrictions, at-large animals, barking dogs, and licensing, the city has two important provisions. First, the city makes it unlawful to own, possess or keep any dog, rabbit, or cat over the age of 6 months that has not been spayed or neutered (subject to some exceptions). Second, it is unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull or restricted breed of dog. "Restricted breeds" include any American Bulldog (Old Country Bulldog), Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Pero De Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff), Cane Corso (Cane Di Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero), Fila Brasileiro or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds. |
|
CO - Commerce City - Breed - Chapter 4 - ANIMAL CODE. ARTICLE I. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. |
Commerce City defines a pit bull or pit bull terrier as any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.) or United Kennel Club (U.K.C.) for any of the above breeds. Commerce City has banned pit bulls with the exception of pit bulls who were in the city prior to November 2005.
|
|
CO - Denver - Breed - Sec. 8-55. Pit bulls prohibited. |
This Denver, Colorado ordinance provides that it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull. A pit bull is defined broadly as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or
any dog displaying the majority of physical traits
of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds." [emphasis added] A person who applied for and received a special pit bull license before August 7, 1989 (date of the publication of the ordinance) and who maintains the pit bull in compliance with the requirements of the ordinance may keep a pit bull.
|
|
CO - Fort Lupton - Breed - Sec. 7-241 Pit bulls prohibited |
It is unlawful to own, keep, possess, maintain, harbor or transport any pit bull in or through Fort Lupton, Colorado, with certain exceptions for licensed vets and animal shelters. Dogs that have already been licensed may remain, as long as the owner is 21 years of age, shows proof of rabies vaccination and liability insurance of $100,000, keeps the dog properly confined, and posts “PIT BULL DOG" signs. Failure to comply with all of the terms shall subject the pit bull to immediate impoundment and disposal.
|
|
CO - Louisville - § Sec. 6.12.160 Pit bulls prohibited. |
This code prohibits ownership of pit bulls within the city and provides certain exceptions. |
|
Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and County of Denver |
The plaintiffs, dog owners and related canine and humane associations (dog owners), filed a complaint in the Denver District Court against the defendant, City and County of Denver (city), seeking both a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the "Pit Bulls Prohibited" ordinance, Denver, Colo., Rev.Mun.Code § 8-55 (1989), and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement.
The dog owners in this case claim the ordinance is unconstitutional, violating their rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection, is unconstitutionally vague, and constitutes a taking of private property.
|
|
CT - Municipalities - Power to Regulate |
This Connecticut statute allows municipalities to prohibit dogs running at large and to prevet animal cruelty; this statute also prohibts municipalities from adopting breed specific legislation. |
