CASE
|
ISSUES
|
HOLDINGS
|
STATUS
|
ARKANSAS
|
|
|
|
Holt v City of Maumelle, 307 Ark.
115, 817 S.W.2d 208 (Ark. 1991)
|
Appeal from summary judgment
for City: whether ordinance
prohibiting Pit Bulls/other breeds
from city was unconstitutional?
|
Order granting summary judgment affirmed.
Banning specific breeds not impermisably vague;
including APBT and "Pit Bull" in banned class not
unreasonable; city did not have authority to delegate
its legislative function to re-enact breed ban in
settlement of prior litigation with plaintiff.
|
State Supreme
Court
|
CALIFORNIA
|
|
|
|
Beebe & American Dog Owners
Association v. City of Union City,
H-138361-6
1989, California Superior Court,
Alameda County (Trial Court)
|
Petition for Peremptory Writ of
Mandate, Muni Code Chapter
8.36, unconstitutionally vague;
violates procedural due process
for failure to provide hearing
before or after seizure of dog.
|
Order to cease and desist enforcement of Muni
Code Chapter 8.36.
|
Not appealed.
City liable for
attorney fees
|
Zuniga v. County of San Mateo
Health Department and Peninsula
Humane Society, 218 Cal. App. 3rd
1526, 1990.
|
Could pit bull puppies born of
mother impounded pursuant to
dogfighting case be declared
and found "inherently
dangerous" under County
dangerous dog ordinance?
(NOTE: ordinance did not
mention breeds.)
|
2-1 published decision of First District Court of
Appeal: must have evidence via expert witnesses
-behaviorial experts and dog trainers as to whether
a dog or puppy who has not done anything except
be born could be vicious. Impounded puppies
released.
|
1st District Court
of Appeal
|
COLORADO
|
|
|
|
Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and
County of Denver , Colorado
820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991)
|
Action for 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.
|
Ordinance did not violate procedural due process
where the ordinance is not fundamentally unfair and
the burden of proof upon the dog owner in the civil
context is valid; evidence of pit bull determination in
a civil context may not then be used to bring criminal
charges against the owners; ordinance not
overbroad in its classification of pit bulls as
dangerous; ordinance not vague, as it provided fair
notice of the conduct circumscribed by ordinance;
no violation of dog owners' rights to equal protection
as ample evidence exists to establish a rational
relationship between the city's classification of
certain dogs as pit bulls and the legitimate
governmental purpose of protecting the health and
safety of the city's residents; valid police power
exercise to protect the health and safety of the
citizens since the evidence showed pit bulls to be
inherently dangerous.
|
SUPREME
COURT OF
COLORADO
|
City and County of Denver v. State
of Colorado, December 9, 2004
|
Whether Denver ordinance
upheld in above case is valid
and enforceable following
enactment of C.R.S. 18-9-204.5
given State Constitution Home
Rule status of Denver?
|
Denver ordinance is valid and constitutional except
as to inter-city transportation provision which is
severed by the Court under the severability clause
contained in ordinance.
|
District Court,
City and County
of Denver
|
Sonya Dias, et al., v City and
County of Denver, Colorado
Civil Action No.
07-cv-00722-WDM-MJW
March 20, 2008
|
Plaintiffs' case not barred by
"issue preclusion", ie. no privity
w/Colo Dog Fanciers; no
violation of procedural due
process for lack of pre-seizure
hearing when post-seizure
hearing is available; plaintiffs did
not have standing to challenge
alleged unwritten policies that
could be unconstitutional; ord. is
not unconstitutionally vague; no
equal protection claim; no
substantive due process claim.
|
Motion to Dismiss granted
|
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF
COLORADO
|
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
|
|
|
|
McNeely v. U.S.
District of Columbia
874 A.2d 371 (D.C. App. 2005)
|
Pit Bull and Rottweiler
Dangerous Dog Designation
Emergency Amendment Act of
1996 "A pit bull or a Rottweiler
that causes injury to or kills a
human being or a domestic
animal without provocation shall
be humanly [sic] destroyed and
the owner of such dog shall be
fined up to $20,000 and may be
sentenced to not more than 2
years of imprisonment." 43
D.C.Reg. 2158 This temporary
act was in effect for only 90
days and never re-enacted.
|
Conviction under emergency Act affirmed,
Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the
proscribed conduct; prosecutor's improper
comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's
curative instructions.
Case analyzes due process challenge as to issues
of standing, vagueness and constitutionality of strict
liability felony. The Act only applied to dogs causing
death/injury in unprovoked attack and not otherwise
a prohibition on owning.
|
District of
Columbia Court
of Appeals
|
FLORIDA
|
|
|
|
American Dog Owners Assn., Inc.,
et al. v. Dade County, Florida, et al.
728 F.Supp. 1533
(S.D. Fla. 1989)
|
County ordinance required
registration, leashing, muzzling,
confinement of 3 specific
AKC/UKC breeds or dogs
substantially conforming to
characteristics; grand-fathering
w/ban; civil fines; potential
destruction of dog. Action for
pre-enforcement declaratory
relief, injunction. Was definition
so vague as to violate due
process under Fed. con.; were
FL con. standards violated by
lack of enforcement standards.
|
Dismissed with prejudice; plaintiffs failed to meet
burden of proof. Ordinance was not facially vague:
the term "pit bull" is understood by dog owners who
know or can determine their dogs' breed.
Enforcement standards did exist so as not to be
impermissably lacking on a pre-enforcement basis.
Court noted that federal courts must construe state
law as constitutional when reasonable construction
can be applied and that plaintiffs had not
challenged County's factual basis, leaving County's
valid exercise of police power and rational
relationship to government interest assumed in this
case.
|
United States
District Court,
Southern
District of
Florida
|
State of Florida v. Peters
Florida
534 So.2d 760
(Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988).
|
City of North Miami Ordinance
No. 422.5, required pit bull
owners to carry insurance, post
a surety bond, or furnish other
evidence of financial
responsibility in the amount of
$300,000 to cover any bodily
injury, death or property damage
that may be caused by the dog,
register their pit bulls with the
City and confine the dogs
indoors or in a locked pen.
|
Ordinance did not violate equal protection clauses
of Florida or United States constitutions, did not
violate dog owners' right to due process, and was
not unconstitutionally vague.
|
District Court of
Appeal of
Florida
Third District
|
Peters v. State
542 So. 2d 1334 (1989)
|
Petition for Review
|
Denied
|
State Supreme
Court
|
IOWA
|
|
|
|
American Dog Owners
Association, Inc., Responsible
Dog Owners of Iowa, Inc.; Roger
Anderson v City of Des Moines
469 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1991)
|
Appeal from trial court upholding
constitutionality of ordinance
requiring special
licensing/confinement of
designated breeds/mixes and
dogs having the appearance of
these breeds.
|
Ordinance provisions for designated breeds was
NOT unconstitutionally vague, but provisions
applying to mixes or "pit bulls" other than
designated breeds WAS unconstitutionally vague.
Severance of the unconstitutional portion only was
appropriate.
|
State Supreme
Court
|
KANSAS
|
|
|
|
Randy L. Hearn v. City of Overland
Park, Kansas
772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989)
Kansas Supreme Court
|
Was city ordinance regulating
ownership of Staff. Bull Terriers,
American Staff. Terriers or
American Pit Bull Terriers
unconstitutional? Plaintiffs
sought injunction and damages.
|
Ordinance not unconstitutionally vague or
overbroad; does not violate the due process rights
of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas
Constitutions; does not violate the equal protection
clauses of the United States and Kansas
Constitutions; the district court did not err in
dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
|
State Supreme
Court
|
KENTUCKY
|
|
|
|
Michael Bess, Timothy Poe v.
Bracken County Fiscal Court
NO. 2005-CA-000541
December 1, 2006
|
Was 2004 local ordinance
prohibiting Pit Bulls, as defined,
inconsistent with generic
dangerous dog statute based on
individual dog's acts?
Trial court (Bracken Circuit
Court) dismissed
plaintiff-appellants' motion for
TRO and complaint. Kentucky
Court of Appeals affirmed.
|
Breed specific ordinance does not conflict with state
generic dangerous dog law but provides a more
comprehensive "plan of protection" for the public
based on use of police power; takings pursuant to
police power rather than public use purpose do not
require compensation of owners; ordinance
contemplated hearing prior to disposition, thus no
deprivation of due process; no violation of
constitutional right to travel, because travelers are
not entitled to greater rights than local residents
regardless of rights in their home jurisdiction.
|
Commonwealth Of
Kentucky
Court of Appeals
|
MASSACHUSETTS
|
|
|
|
American Dog Owners Assn., et al
v. City of Lynn
533 N.E. 2d 642
(1989)
|
City enacted a series of
ordinances: 1st imposed breed
specific restraint requirements;
2nd repealed any inconsistent
terms and imposed ban except
restraint on owners' property; 3rd
replaced previous and repealed
inconsistent terms, imposing
new requirements, restrictions;
Trial Court declared 3rd ord. void
for vagueness; a 4th ordinance
was enacted.
|
Enactment of the 4th ordinance rendered moot the
controversy and action on the prior 3, requiring
vacating the trial court judgment. The court
suggested that if based on the same facts and
arguments, the 4th ordinance might also be
unconstitutionally vague.
|
SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT
OF
MASSACHUSETTS
- ESSEX
|
MISSOURI
|
|
|
|
City of Pagedale v Murphy
142 S.W.3d 775(Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
THE COURT COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE STATE OF
MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT
|
Appellant Murphy appealed
conviction ($100 fine) under
ordinance for possession an
American Stafforshire Terrier
when the ordinance referred only
to a "pit bull".
|
Court of Appeals held ordinance not defining "pit
bull" is not unconstitutionally vague and whether a
specific dog is a "pit bull" is a question for the trier of
fact and not one of constitutional law.
|
State Supreme
Court denied
application for
transfer
|
NEW MEXICO
|
|
|
|
Garcia et al v. Village of Tijeras
767 P.2d 355 (1988) New Mexico
Court of Appeals
(AKC as Amicus Curiae)
|
Appeal from District Ct. of
Bernalillo County upholding
ordinance banning
ownership/possession of
American Pit Bull Terrier. 18 of
80 households had 1 or more pit
bulls.
|
Court of Appeals held ordinance not
unconstitutionally vague as to Plaintiffs' pit bulls; not
violative of substantive or procedural due process;
not a taking of private property without just
compensation;
|
State Supreme
Court denied
Certiorari
|
OHIO
|
|
|
|
Vanater v. Village of South Point
Ohio
717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989)
US District Court Ohio, Southern
District of Ohio
|
Criminal ordinance prohibiting
Pit Bulls as defined "... any
Staffordshire Bull Terrier or
American Staffordshire Terrier
breed of dog, or any mixed breed
of dog which contains, as an
element of its breeding the
breed of Staffordshire Bull
Terrier or American Staffordshire
Terrier as to be identifiable as
partially of the breed of
Staffordshire Bull Terrier or
American Staffordshire Terrier by
a qualified veterinarian duly
licensed by the State of Ohio."
Complaint sought declaratory
judgment and permanent
injunction.
|
US District Court found ordinance constitutional:
valid exercise of police power, there is a
presumption of constitutionality, there was a rational
relationship to a legitimate government interest, not
unconstitutionally vague, underinclusive or
overbroad, and "United States Constitution does not
empower this Court to second guess state officials
charged with the difficult responsibility of protecting
the safety and welfare of its public."
|
United States
District Court
|
State v. Robinson
541 N.E. 2nd 541
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Clermont
County
1989
|
Defendant appealed conviction
under state law requirement to
securely confine pit bulls (R.S.
955.22(D)(1)
|
Court of Appeals affirmed and upheld state law as
not unconstitutionally vague, over-broad or violating
due process protection. Court noted "Courts,
however, frequently upheld against vagueness
challenges laws, which, like pit bull statutes and
ordinances, describe objects" as distinguished
from laws defining conduct being more likely to be
found violative.
|
Court of Appeals
of Ohio, Clermont
County
|
City of Akron v. Tipton
559 N.E. 2d 1385
Akron Municipal Court
1989
|
Defendant filed motion to
dismiss charges of violating city
ordinance with breed specific
restrictions and regulations.
|
(Defendant did not appeal his subsequent
conviction.) Court upheld ordinance as
constitutional. (Court noted that both sides "spent
considerable effort" and "the city's brief tends to
emphasize the case law and ...defendant's brief, the
facts.")
|
Akron Municipal
Court
|
Singer et al v. City of Cincinnati
566 N.E. 2d 190
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton
County
1990
|
AmStaff owners appealed trial
court finding that municipal code
provision prohibiting
owning/keeping/harboring pit
bull in the city is constitutional.
This ordinance followed
previous restrictive ordinances.
|
Upheld: Ordinance involved no fundamental right or
suspect class of persons so that evidence to
disprove rational relationship to public safety would
have to meet clear and convincing standard: no
violation of constitutional due process or equal
protection rights. Ordinance is not
unconstitutionally vague as to persons who know
that their dogs are included.
|
Court of Appeals
of Ohio, Hamilton
County
|
George M. Anderson v. Ohio
501 U.S. 1257, 115 L.Ed.2d 1067
|
Petition U.S. Supreme Court
of
Ohio v. Anderson
|
Petition for writ of certiorari to Supreme
Court of Ohio denied.
|
U.S. Supreme
Court
|
State of Ohio v Anderson, 57 Ohio
St. 3rd, 168; 566 NE 2nd, 1224.
February 13, 1991
Ohio Supreme Court
|
Charges under R.C. 955.22(D)
failure to confine vicious dog,
R.C. 955.22(E) failure to obtain
liability insurance for vicious
dog, i.e. pit bull. Trial court
dismissed charges; found R.C.
955.11(A)(4)(iii)
unconstitutionally void for
vagueness. Ohio appealed.
10th District Court of Appeals
affirmed, October 12, 1989.
|
Upheld R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(iii) NOT unconstitutionally
void for vagueness.
|
State Supreme
Court
|
State of Ohio v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio
St. 3rd 176; 566 NE 2d 1230.
February 13, 1991
Ohio Supreme Court
|
Whether statute requiring
confining vicious dog known as
a "pit bull" unconstitutionally
vague? Defendant's conviction
had been reversed by Court of
Appeals. 2 unconfined dogs
killed 2 yr old child.
|
Reversed (remanded on other issues) "commonly
known as a pit bull dog" is not vague and defendant
had registered his dog as "American Pit Bull
Terrier."
|
State Supreme
Court
|
City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings
TOLEDO MUNICIPAL COURT,
LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
Trial Court No. CRB-02-15267
July 8, 2004
|
Charges under Toledo ord.
prohibiting owning more than 1
vicious dog as defined under
R.C. 955.11 or a dog commonly
known as a Pit Bull or Pit Bull
mixed breed, 3 counts failure to
obtain vicious dog insurance.
|
Convicted on all counts. State statute and Toledo
ordinance upheld as constitutional.
|
Reversed
|
Toledo v. Tellings Mar. 3, 2006,
2006-Ohio-975,
Court Of Appeals Of Ohio
Sixth Appellate District
Lucas County
No. L-04-1224
Decided: March 3, 2006
|
Appeal conviction on 4 issues:
State statue and Toledo ord.
unconstitutional for lack of
procedural due process; violated
rights to equal protection and
substantive due process for lack
of rational basis to single out pit
bull as inherently dangerous;
improper taking of private
property without just
compensation;
unconstitutionally vague
because no rational basis to
identify pit bull.
|
REVERSED
State statue and Toledo ord. found unconstitutional
for lack of procedural due process; violated rights to
equal protection and substantive due process for
lack of rational basis to single out pit bull as
inherently dangerous; unconstitutionally vague
because no rational basis to identify pit bull.
Appellant's issue of improper taking was found
moot and not decided.
|
Reversed
|
Toledo v. Tellings. (see page 6)
05-10-06
Lucas App. No. L-04-1224,
2006-Ohio-975
|
Motion for stay of execution
of
judgment. (pending appeal)
|
Motion granted. 6-1, Justice Alice Robie
Resnick dissenting.
|
OHIO
SUPREME
COURT
|
Toledo v. Tellings
8-1-07
114 Ohio St. 3d 210
871 N.E. 2d 1152
|
The state of Ohio and the city of
Toledo have a legitimate interest
in protecting citizens from the
dangers associated with pit
bulls, and that R.C.
955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and 955.22
and Toledo Municipal Code
505.14 are rationally related to
that interest and are
constitutional.
|
REVERSED 7-0, Justice Maureen O'Connor
concurring opinion disapproving state law
provision classifying pit bulls as dangerous
|
OHIO
SUPREME
COURT
|
Toledo v. Tellings
9/26/07, Case Announcements
2007-Ohio-4884
|
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
|
MOTION DENIED
|
OHIO
SUPREME
COUT
|
Paul Tellings v. City of Toledo
No. 07-8545
522 U.S. ___
|
Petition for a writ of
certiorari and motion for
leave to proceed in forma
pauperis
|
Petition for writ of certiorari denied
|
UNITED
STATES
SUPREME
COURT
|
Paul Tellings v. City of Toledo
No. 07-8545
522 U.S. ___
|
Petition for rehearing
|
Denied
|
UNITED
STATES
SUPREME
COURT
|
PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
|
|
Starkey v. Township of Chester
628 F.Supp.196 (E.E.Pa. 1986)
Note: Federal District Court
|
Motion for preliminary injunction
re Township ordinance
regulating "Pit Bulls" - Hi fee
licenses; $20K bond; confined
or muzzled; removed/destroyed if
attack involved.
|
Motion denied: Ordinance met rational basis test,
thus no violation of equal protection rights.
Chances of prevailing at trial too slim to grant
preliminary injunction. First Amendment and
Commerce Clause claims "frivolous".
|
United States
District Court,
Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
|
TEXAS
|
|
|
|
City of Richardson v. Responsible
Dog Owners of Texas
794 S.W.2d 17
(Tex. 1990).
|
Dog owners sought injunction
and declaratory relief based on
issue of whether state law
preempted criminal ordinance
when some ordinance
provisions were based on state
law. Dangerous animal
ordinance included special
registration for pit bull dogs.
|
Reversed: State law on topic did not completely
preempt but requires reasonable construction when
there is only small overlap of narrow statute and
broad ordinance written as a comprehensive
approach to animals including just a small
provision limited to dogs. Court stated; Under
article XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution,
home-rule cities have broad discretionary powers
provided that no ordinance "shall contain any
provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the
State, or of the general laws enacted by the
Legislature of this State...."
|
SUPREME
COURT OF
TEXAS
|
Responsible Dog Owners of
Texas v. City of Richardson
781 S.W. 2nd 667
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas
1990
|
Dog owners had sought
injunction and declaratory relief
based on issue of whether state
law preempted criminal
ordinance when some
ordinance provisions were
based on state law. Dangerous
animal ordinance included
special registration for pit bull
dogs. Trial court held for city.
Dog owners appealed.
|
Court of Appeals reversed, based on state law
preemption of differing local criminal ordinance with
same provisions, holding ordinance void.
(Note, no breed specific issues were decided in this
case which was based on the breed specific
ordinance provision causing it to differ from and
conflict with state law to the point of state
preemption.)
|
COURT OF
APPEALS OF
TEXAS, DALLAS
|
UTAH
|
|
|
|
Greenwood & American Dog
Breeders Association v. City of
North Salt Lake
817P.2d 816
1991
|
Appeal from Davis County
District Ct upholding 1987 city
ordinance imposing
requirements for special
licensing, insurance,
confinement, muzzling for
vicious dogs including certain
breeds (included Tosas and
Shar-Pei). Trial Court found
definition of "vicious animal"
alone void for vagueness, and
the City did not appeal this issue.
|
Plaintiffs did not show that the trial courts findings of
fact were clearly erroneous as to determination of
breed; ordinance not unconstitutionally vague on its
face or as to plaintiffs; does not violate 14th
Amendment right to equal protection for
over-breadth or under-inclusiveness.
|
SUPREME
COURT OF
UTAH
|
WASHINGTON
|
|
|
|
American Dog Owners
Association v. The City of Yakima
113 Wn.2d 213, 777 P.2d 1046
1989
|
City of Yakima ordinance 3034
banned pit bulls, specifically the
breeds Bull Terrier, American Pit
Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull
Terrier, and American
Staffordshire Terrier, as well as
dogs "identifiable" as having any
pit bull variety as an element of
their breeding, allowed pit bulls
licensed prior to the enactment
to be kept subject to certain
rules and allowed a judge to
release apprehended dog on
showing dog will not return to
city or was misidentified.
|
Ordinance was not unconstitutionally
overbroad or vague.
|
SUPREME
COURT OF
WASHINGTON
|
WISCONSIN
|
|
|
|
Dog Federation of Wisconsin &
individuals v. City of South
Milwaukee 504 N.W.3d 275
(Wis.App 1993)
|
Appeal from trial court
decision upholding
ordinance banning "Pit
Bulls" not
registered/licensed by
4/1/1989.
|
Ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and did
not violate right to equal protection under Fourteenth
Amendment of US Constitution or Art. I, sec. 1 of
Wisconsin Constitution. Overbreadth doctrine
applies only to First Amendment context.
|
Court of
Appeals of
Wisconsin
|
| |
|
|
|
