8/13/2019 Dangerous Dog pleadings

1/2

Dangerous Dog: Related Pleadings

Phillips v. Director (1986)

228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist.,1986)

These are excellent briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a"dangerous" dog is euthanized.

City and County of Denver v. State of Colorado

In 2004, the Colorado General Assembly passed changes to the state's dangerous dog

laws; part of the law prohibited municipalities from adopting any breed-specific dog

laws. Denver previously enacted an ordinance that regulated dogs by breed (Section 8-

55). In this current action, the City instituted an action seeking declaratory judgment that

Section 8-55 preempts the state law under the Home Rule Amendment. The court found

that the regulation of dogs by breed on an intra-city basis was purely a matter of local

concern, and thus fell under Home Rule authority. The state was permanently enjoinedfrom taking any action against Denver based on the language of the amended state law.

Ciaccio v. City of Port St. Lucie

The following documents concern the appellant's request to release his dog from the

Port St. Lucie, Florida Humane Society. At the time of the petition, the dog was kept in a

"quarantine" area of the shelter and had not been let out of his cage for exercise or

socialization since he was seized 8 months prior. Appellant asks the court to either let

him securely confine the dog at his home or board him at the Safe Harbor Animal

Sanctuary until the dangerous dog determination is resolved.

Mansour v. King County (2006)

In this Washington case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a

King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious and ordering her removed

from the county. The court found that for Mansour or any other pet owner to prove

effectively present his or her case and rebut the evidence against him or her, due

process requires that he or she be able to subpoena witnesses and present records. Mr.

Mansour was prejudiced in his case because he was not allowed to do so and was not

given sufficient notice for the hearing.

Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990)This action concerns the release of a dog who was impounded and classified as

dangerous without a chance for his owner to argue against the action. Plaintiff Malane

Wilson filed a petition for a preliminary and permanent injunction, a petition for

declaratory judgment, and a petition for replevin against the City of St. Louis and the

Animal Regulation Center, among others. The subject of the petitions concerned her

http://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscaphillips.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscodenver_colorado.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusflciaccio.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuswamansour.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusmowilson.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscodenver_colorado.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusflciaccio.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuswamansour.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusmowilson.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscaphillips.htm

8/13/2019 Dangerous Dog pleadings

2/2

American Pit Bull Terrier named Max who was seized by agents of the Animal

Regulation Center as an apparent dangerous dog.

Maldonado v. Fontanes

This case was initially brought after two successive raids on public housing complexes,within ten days of the Municipality of Barceloneta assuming control of the public housing

complexes from the Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration on October 1, 2007.

Prior to the raid, the residents, mostly Spanish-speakers, were given notice of the new

"no pet policy," which were written in English. During the raids, plaintiffs' pets were

seized and then killed by either being slammed against the side of a van or thrown off a

50-foot bridge. This First Circuit affirmed the denial of the Mayor's motion for qualified

immunity on the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due

process claims. However, it reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the Mayor as to

the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims and ordered those

claims dismissed. Included in the pleading documents are plaintiffs' second amendedcomplaint filed in 2007 and plaintiffs' brief filed in December 2008.

Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)

Case where owners challenge validity of euthanasia order for "dangerous" dog.

Ortega Administrative Hearing (1997)

Trial brief for an administrative hearing to determine whether dog, "Rocky," was "vicious"

or "dangerous."

Betts v. City of Long Beach (1991)

This is a petition demanding an administrative hearing before the euthanizing of a dog.

http://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusfdmaldonado.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscawilliams.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscaortega.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscabetts.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbusfdmaldonado.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscawilliams.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscaortega.htmhttp://www.animallaw.info/pleadings/pbuscabetts.htm