City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas
case brief
794 S.W.2d 17
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner,
City of Richardson, challenged the judgment from the Court of Appeals
of Texas, Fifth District, which reversed the trial court's summary
judgment in favor of petitioner and held that petitioner's ordinance
regulating the keeping of dogs was preempted by the Texas Penal
Code.
FACTS: The court of appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of petitioner, City of Richardson, and held that petitioner's ordinance regulating the keeping of dogs was preempted by the Texas Penal Code because it proscribed the same conduct as the Texas Penal Code. The court observed that the ordinance was a comprehensive attempt to address the control of all animals. Whereas Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.12 was limited to the control of dogs that have actually engaged in vicious conduct. Under Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5, home-rule cities had broad discretionary powers provided that no ordinance contained any provision inconsistent with the Texas Constitution, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of the state. Although there was a small area of overlap in the provisions of the narrow statute and the broader ordinance, the court held that it was not fatal. Thus, Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1.08 and 42.12 was not a preemption of petitioner's power to adopt the comprehensive animal control ordinance. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the cause remanded to for consideration of points of error that were previously left unaddressed.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals as the penal code did not preempt the petitioner's comprehensive animal control ordinance. The court then remanded the cause to the court of appeals for it to consider points of error that were previously left unaddressed.
FACTS: The court of appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of petitioner, City of Richardson, and held that petitioner's ordinance regulating the keeping of dogs was preempted by the Texas Penal Code because it proscribed the same conduct as the Texas Penal Code. The court observed that the ordinance was a comprehensive attempt to address the control of all animals. Whereas Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.12 was limited to the control of dogs that have actually engaged in vicious conduct. Under Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5, home-rule cities had broad discretionary powers provided that no ordinance contained any provision inconsistent with the Texas Constitution, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of the state. Although there was a small area of overlap in the provisions of the narrow statute and the broader ordinance, the court held that it was not fatal. Thus, Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1.08 and 42.12 was not a preemption of petitioner's power to adopt the comprehensive animal control ordinance. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the cause remanded to for consideration of points of error that were previously left unaddressed.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals as the penal code did not preempt the petitioner's comprehensive animal control ordinance. The court then remanded the cause to the court of appeals for it to consider points of error that were previously left unaddressed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment