Summary:
These are detailed briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a "dangerous" dog is euthanized.
These are detailed briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a "dangerous" dog is euthanized.
Summary:
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Somerset Wisconsin, with exceptions for dogs registered prior to the effective date of the pit bull ban. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement or the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance. Puppies born to such dogs must be removed from the city after 6 weeks.
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Somerset Wisconsin, with exceptions for dogs registered prior to the effective date of the pit bull ban. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement or the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance. Puppies born to such dogs must be removed from the city after 6 weeks.
Summary:
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Juneau, Wisconsin, with an exception for pit bulls registered on the day the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of $50,000 liability insurance for personal injury caused by a pit bull.
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Juneau, Wisconsin, with an exception for pit bulls registered on the day the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of $50,000 liability insurance for personal injury caused by a pit bull.
Summary:
In Hewitt, Wisconsin, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pitbull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered by the date the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept subject to certain conditions, such as keeping the dog properly confined, using a leash and muzzle, posting "Beware of Dog" signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance.
In Hewitt, Wisconsin, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pitbull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered by the date the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept subject to certain conditions, such as keeping the dog properly confined, using a leash and muzzle, posting "Beware of Dog" signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance.
Summary:
In Wooster, Ohio, no person may possess, harbor or keep a vicious animal, which includes any Pit Bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the first degree. The dog or other vicious animal may be removed from the City or be humanely destroyed.
In Wooster, Ohio, no person may possess, harbor or keep a vicious animal, which includes any Pit Bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the first degree. The dog or other vicious animal may be removed from the City or be humanely destroyed.
Summary:
The municipal code of Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, makes it unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any pit bull terrier. Any dog determined to be a pit bull terrier by a court shall be destroyed or removed from the city.
The municipal code of Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, makes it unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any pit bull terrier. Any dog determined to be a pit bull terrier by a court shall be destroyed or removed from the city.
Summary:
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.
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.
Summary:
In Avondale Estates, Georgia, animal fighting is not only prohibited by ordinance, but an animal trained for fighting is also considered a public nuisance, and an abused and dangerous animal. This ordinance provides provisions for each of the respective categories, as well as penalties for the violations. Notably, the city will not respond to a citizen's compliant about a violation of this chapter if the citizen chooses to remain anonymous.
In Avondale Estates, Georgia, animal fighting is not only prohibited by ordinance, but an animal trained for fighting is also considered a public nuisance, and an abused and dangerous animal. This ordinance provides provisions for each of the respective categories, as well as penalties for the violations. Notably, the city will not respond to a citizen's compliant about a violation of this chapter if the citizen chooses to remain anonymous.
Summary:
On grant of appeal from Branks v. Kern , 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. 1986). Cat owner brought negligence action against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after her hand was bitten while she held her own cat during a catheterization procedure. In reversing the Court of Appeals decision (348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. App. 1986)), the Supreme Court held that defendants in the instant case have met their burden of showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the evidence showed that the danger was obvious to plaintiff and defendants only owed plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care.
On grant of appeal from Branks v. Kern , 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. 1986). Cat owner brought negligence action against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after her hand was bitten while she held her own cat during a catheterization procedure. In reversing the Court of Appeals decision (348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. App. 1986)), the Supreme Court held that defendants in the instant case have met their burden of showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the evidence showed that the danger was obvious to plaintiff and defendants only owed plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care.
Summary:
In this negligence action, a cat owner brought suit against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after she was bitten by her own cat while the cat was receiving treatment by the veterinarian. At issue, is whether the veterinarian owed a duty to the cat owner to exercise reasonable care in preventing the cat from harming the owner while the cat was being treated. In review of the lower court’s grant of motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that substantial issues of material fact existed to preclude the grant of summary judgment. However, this was overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court. ( See , Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) 359 S.E.2d 780 (N.C.,1987)).
In this negligence action, a cat owner brought suit against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after she was bitten by her own cat while the cat was receiving treatment by the veterinarian. At issue, is whether the veterinarian owed a duty to the cat owner to exercise reasonable care in preventing the cat from harming the owner while the cat was being treated. In review of the lower court’s grant of motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that substantial issues of material fact existed to preclude the grant of summary judgment. However, this was overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court. ( See , Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) 359 S.E.2d 780 (N.C.,1987)).
