|
FL - Dangerous Dog - CHAPTER 767. DAMAGE BY DOGS. |
This Florida statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog act limits the ability of local governments from enacting restrictions on dangerous dogs more severe than the state law, as long as the regulations are not breed-specific. |
|
Frost v. City of Sioux City, Iowa |
In this case, the City of Sioux City had adopted a local ordinance that made it "unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell within the City ... any pit bull." The ordinance goes on further to define pit bulls based on appearance and certain listed characteristics. Plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance is unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it: (1) is unconstitutionally vague; (2) violates their rights under the equal protection clause; and (3) violates their rights under the due process clause, both in substance and procedure. Here, the district court found that the due process and equal protection claims survived the defendant's motion to dismiss, but found that the ordinance was not facially unconstitutionally vague. As a result, defendants' Motion to Dismiss was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs' claim that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague was DISMISSED, and plaintiffs may proceed with their remaining equal protection clause and due process clause claims. |
|
Frost v. Sioux City, Iowa |
Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a ban making it “unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell within the City of Sioux City, Iowa, any pit bull.” Two of the original plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal because they moved out of Sioux City and did not anticipate that they would face enforcement under the ordinance. The remaining plaintiff Myers admitted in deposition that she does not currently own a dog nor does she currently reside in Sioux City, but that, in the near future, she intends to adopt a pit bull dog and take the dog to visit friends and family in Sioux City. Based on these facts, the district court, sua sponte, dismissed Myers' claims due to lack of standing. On review of that dismissal here, the appellate court first noted that, to show standing, Myers must have suffered an injury in fact. While the conduct of defendant Sioux City caused Myers injury in the past when they seized her two dogs, she must now face "a real and immediate threat" of similar injury in the future. Her intention to one day adopt a dog and take it to Sioux City does not suffice, according to the court. The declaratory judgment plaintiff seeks cannot redress a past injury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing on the dismissal prior to its sua sponte ruling. The judgment was affirmed. |
|
Garcia v. Village of Tijeras |
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance of the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico banning the ownership or possession of a breed of dog “known as American Pit Bull Terrier.” The District Court of Bernalillo County upheld the ordinance and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs had notice that the ordinance proscribes the conduct in which they were engaged; thus, it was not void for vagueness. With regard to the argument that the ordinance violated substantive due process, the court found that ordinance was rationally related to legitimate village purpose of protecting the health and safety of the community. Finally, the court found that the ordinance did not violate procedural due process where the ordinance provides that a hearing is held after impoundment to determine whether the dog is a pit bull.
|
|
Hearn v. City of Overland Park |
Syllabus by the Court
In an action to enjoin the City of Overland Park from enforcing an ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city, the record is examined and it is held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
|
|
Holcomb v. Colonial Associates, L.L.C. |
This North Carolina case involves the issue of whether a landlord can be held liable for negligence when his tenant's dogs injure a third party where a landlord has agreed by contract to remove "undesirable" dogs. Under the terms of the lease, the tenant, Olson, could keep one Rottweiler dog on the property. It was also stipulated that the landlord could require removal of any "undesirable" pets with 48-hour's notice. The dogs in the instant action attacked a contractor who was making an estimate on some of the rental homes, and, according to testimony, had committed two prior attacks. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred, in that the plaintiff was not required to show Colonial was an owner or keeper of the dogs in order to show Colonial was negligent; that requirement is limited only to strict liability actions. As a result, the court found Colonial failed to use ordinary care by failing to require the defendant Olson to restrain his Rottweiler dogs, or remove them from the premises when the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, from the dogs' past conduct, that they were likely, if not restrained, to do an act from which a reasonable person could foresee. Of particular importance to the court, was the lease provision, which the court felt contractually obligated the landlord to retain control over defendant's dogs.
|
|
IA - Council Bluffs - Breed - Chapter 4.20 - ANIMAL CONTROL (Pit Bull Ordinance) |
In Council Bluffs, Iowa, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull. There are exceptions for dogs already licensed if the owner meets certain requirements, such as being at least 18 years old, maintaining liability insurance of at least $100,000, the dog is sterilized and microchipped, the dog is confined and there is a "PIT BULL DOG" sign. Failure by the owner to comply shall subject the pit bull to immediate impoundment and disposal.
|
|
IA - Ottumwa - Breed - ARTICLE IV. - DANGEROUS ANIMALS (Pit Bull Ordinance) |
In Ottumwa, Iowa, no person shall keep, shelter, or harbor pit bull terriers, with exceptions, because they are deemed to be dangerous. A violation is a simple misdemeanor resulting in a minimum fine of $100. The prohibition does not apply to dogs participating in a dog show (if properly restrained) or being treated at a veterinary hospital.
|
|
IA - Sioux City - Breed - Chapter 7.10 PIT BULLS PROHIBITED |
The City of Sioux City, Iowa makes it unlawful to own, transport, or sell any pit bull, with exceptions. Pit bulls currently and continuously registered, licensed, properly confined and cared for are exempt from the ban, but a failure to maintain its status immediately removes its exemption. The poundmaster is authorized to immediately impound any pit bull that does not fall within one of the exceptions and is mandated to destroy the pit bull within ten calendar days.
|
|
ID - Fruitland - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance |
In Fruitland, Idaho, it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, pit bills exempt from the ban are subsumed to be dangerous dogs.
|
