Source: http://theanimalcouncil.com/BSL-Legal.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:51:15+00:00

Document:
Volume 53, No. 4, 1984. The New Breed of Municipal Dog Control Laws: Are They Constitutional?
propriety of enactment procedures under government law, enforcement issues and plaintiffs’ standing in particular cases.
can be found in law libraries.
claims and enactment or enforcement procedures.
to either "potentially dangerous dogs" or "dangerous dogs" are made to apply automatically to a specific breed.
others. The city of Yakima's ordinance banning pit bull terriers was challenged and upheld in American Dog Owners v. Yakima, 113 Wn.
Unofficial copies of cases provided for educational purposes. Use official editions for citation purposes.
breeds from city was unconstitutional?
of prior litigation with plaintiff.
provide hearing before or after seizure of dog.
Society, 218 Cal. App. 3rd 1526, 1990.
declared and found "inherently dangerous"
under County dangerous dog ordinance?
constitutionality of the "Pit Bulls Prohibited"
bulls to be inherently dangerous.
Constitution Home Rule status of Denver?
and Florence Vianzon, Plaintiffs, v.
process, equal protection and takings.
and Reversed in part and remanded.
otherwise a prohibition on owning.
al. v. Dade County, Florida, et al.
w/ban; civil fines; potential destruction of dog.
can determine their dogs' breed.
confine the dogs indoors or in a locked pen.
American Pit Bull Terriers unconstitutional?
Plaintiffs sought injunction and damages.
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
American Dog Owners Assn., et al v.
142 S.W.3d 775(Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
ordinance referred only to a "pit bull".
statutes and ordinances, describe objects"
process or equal protection rights.
Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
State of Ohio v Anderson, 57 Ohio St.
Court of Appeals affirmed, October 12, 1989.
State of Ohio v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.
dogs killed 2 yr old child.
dog as "American Pit Bull Terrier."
failure to obtain vicious dog insurance.
Toledo ordinance upheld as constitutional.
because no rational basis to identify pit bull.
taking was found moot and not decided.
related to that interest and are constitutional.
authority under the Home Rule Amendment.
trial too slim to grant preliminary injunction.
special registration for pit bull dogs.
Responsible Dog Owners of Texas v.
included special registration for pit bull dogs.
and the City did not appeal this issue.
American Dog Owners Association v.
violate due process of citizens.
upholding ordinance banning "Pit Bulls"
only to First Amendment context.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 1983
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.