Summary:
This document contains the court's instructions to the jury in the Danton v. St. Francis case that concerned the escape of a companion animal (cat) from defendant animal hospital. The cat was being boarded at the hospital at the time it escaped.
Summary:
This Yakima, Washington ordinance makes it unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog within the city of Yakima. Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. This chapter does not apply to pit bull dogs which: 1) do not reside in the city of Yakima, 2) are brought into the city for the purposes of participating in a dog show or canine sporting event for which the owner is able to show proof of entry, and 3) do not remain in the city of Yakima for a period exceeding ninety-six consecutive hours.
Summary:
In Selah, Washington, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a pit bull dog, with an exception for pit bulls licensed prior to the ordinance. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements regarding confinement, use of an orange collar, leash and muzzle, the posting of"Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of liability insurance. Such dogs must be vaccinated against rabies and be photographed and micro-chipped for identification purposes. An owner who fails to comply may have his pit bull dog confiscated and impounded. Violations of r constitute a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Summary:
This part of the King County, Washington animal control ordinance states that no person shall own or harbor any cat or dog over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered unless the person holds an unaltered animal license for the animal pursuant to K.C.C. 11.04.030 (except for guide dog puppies and police service dogs). The animal care and control authority shall develop and implement a twelve-month program to canvass for compliance with the licensing requirements of this chapter.
Summary:
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.
Summary:
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.
Summary:
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.
Summary:
Petitioner dog owner sought an injunction against a Seattle ordinance that allowed the city to destroy a vicious dog once the owner has been found guilty of owning a vicious dog (two lhasa apsos) . The majority held that the state statute regulating dogs did not preempt field of regulating dangerous dogs and the city ordinance did not irreconcilably conflict with state statute. Notably, Justice Sanders filed a strong dissent, pointing out that these dogs are the primary companions for the elderly petitioner. While the state law regulating dangerous dogs allows cities to regulate "potentially dangerous dogs," the Seattle ordinance in question fails to make a distinction between the two types of dogs. Justice Sanders wrote: "As Mr. Rabon notes, if the City were correct, dog owners and defense attorneys would find themselves arguing the bite was so vicious that the dog qualifies as "dangerous" in order to spare the dog's life." Thus, the ordinance "eviscerates" the dual definition and violates the overriding state law on dangerous dogs.
Summary:
In this case, exotic animal owners appeal a summary judgment order dismissing their various constitutional challenges to a City of Battle Ground ordinance that prohibits ownership of such animals within city limits. Specifically, the owners contended that the ordinance violated their right to equal protection under the constitution because it treats those who keep exotic pets within the City differently from those who keep dangerous dogs. The court held that it was within the city's police power authority to enact these laws if they were supported by a rational relationship. In fact, the court found that the local legislative body may draw a different conclusion from the Washington Supreme Court in areas of public safety and the exercise of the local government's police powers provided it does not conflict with the general laws of the state. ( Note : publication of case ordered Feb. 7, 2003 in 115 Wash.App. 752, 63 P.3d 142 ).
Summary:
The plaintiff sued for damages as a result of the wrongful spaying of her purebred dog, which she intended to breed. The court found that damages should be measured by the fair market value of the dog.
