FW: nuisance ordinances

[Hideyo Yamamoto]

Hi, I got this from ALDF - very interesting.. I am just forwarding this
to you in case you guys find it interesting..

-----Original Message-----
From: ALDF Info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 11:11 AM
To: Hideyo Yamamoto
Subject: RE: nuisance ordinances

Hi Ishideyo,
Per our conversation, I have included the pleadings summaries for 
nuisance ordinances
that address limiting the number of pets one can have under their care 
(see attachment).
Additional parts of these pleadings summaries are available to attorneys
per his/her request.
You might find additional helpful information at the Animal Legal and 
Historical Center,
see: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdognumberordinances.htm.
Although we do not have an attorney referral network, we do offer 
contact information
for organizations that do assist with referrals,
see: http://www.aldf.org/packets.asp?sect=resources, select: "finding an

attorney".
I hope this is helpful.
Take care and best wishes for all concerned.
For the animals,
BJ Avery

Title: 240 - Ordinances Limiting Number of Animals

240 - Ordinances Limiting Number of Animals

Number	Caption	Court	State	Date	Summary
240.10	Fiala v. Village of Carpentersville	U.S. Supreme Court		1981	Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court raised the issue of the constitutionality of a local ordinance which prohibits the ownership of more than two (2) dogs in a single-family residence, but contains no reference to nuisance or danger to the general public.
240.20	Goodhue v. L.A. County Department of Animal Control	Superior Court of CA, L.A. County	CA	1985	Petitioner housed a greater number of pets than allowed by city ordinance. For many years, she held a kennel permit. In 1985, Petitioner's request for permit renewal was denied based on her being in a residential area. No hearing was granted. Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Prohibition were granted ex parte.
240.30	People v. Lawrence	Superior Court, County of Nevada, CA, App. Dept.	CA	1987	Defendant, who ran a shelter for stray cats, was convicted of violating a county zoning ordinance which forbids more than three (3) adult cats on less than one (1) acre of land. Defendant appealed unsuccessfully.
246.10	State v. Beckert	61 A.2d 213, N.J. Supreme Court	NJ	1948	Upheld ordinance which limited number of dogs per household to three.
246.20	Bell v. Barrett	241 GA 103, GA Supreme Court	GA	1978	Upheld ordinance which limited residents to three dogs per household.
246.30	Commonwealth of PA v. Creighton	639 A2d 1296, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania	PA	1994	Cat owner appealed from summary conviction for violating ordinance limiting the number of cats and/or dogs which a person could keep within the Borough to a total of five. The Commonwealth Court of the State of Pennsylvania, reversing the State Appellate Court and remanding to the trial court, held: 1. that the ordinance reached beyond the power of the municipality to regulate nuisances, in that it did not require the municipality to affirmatively establish that a nuisance in fact existed; 2. that the trial court failed to obtain sufficient information to determine whether the ordinance provided a reasonable means to effectuate a legitimate governmental goal to protect the public interest.