Animals

Effect of 1981 enactment of the Agriculture Code on previous local option stock law elections.

Local option stock law election, in which a single ballot proposition combined proposals from a petition to restrain cattle with a petition to restrain horses or other animals, is invalid

Harris County Animal Control is prohibited from providing to entity that contracts with city of Houston information contained in rabies vaccination certificate and made confidential under chapter 826 of the Health and Safety Code|Rabies vaccination certificate, Harris County Animal Control is prohibited from providing to entity that contracts with city of Houston information contained in

Rabies control authority in unincorporated areas of county, commissioners court must designate officer to act as|Rabies control authority, commissioners court may designate constable to act as, but is not required to do so

Horsemeat exported abroad, application of transportation ban to foreign corporation|Horsemeat exported abroad, the application of transportation ban to foreign corporation transporting horsemeat through Texas does not violate the Commerce Clause|Horsemeat exported abroad, the application of transportation ban to foreign corporation transporting horsemeat through Texas is not likely preempted by section 1553 of the Tariff Act of 1930

Animal “previously captured� is one that has been confined against its will prior to act of inflicting death or serious bodily injury to the animal in violation of section 42.092 of the Penal Code \r\n\r\n|Animal “previously captured� is one that has been confined against its will prior to act of inflicting death or serious bodily injury to the animal in violation of section 42.092 of the Penal Code |Animal previously captured

Rehabilitation permit from Parks & Wildlife Department, holder of not exempt from application of section 822.102(5), Health & Safety Code, with regard to animals not indigenous to Texas|Holder of rehabilitation permit from Parks and Wildlife Department is not exempt from section 822.102(5)of Health and Safety Code with regard to animals not indigenous to Texas |Rehabilitation permit from Department, holder of is not exempt from application of section 822.102(5) of Health and Safety Code, with regard to animals not indigenous to Texas

Dangerous dog, a municipal court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate compliance hearings under Health and Safety Code section 822.042 and appeals from dangerous-dog determinations under section 822.421|Court of competent jurisdiction

Farm vehicle, owner of a vehicle used to transport birds, rats, mice, hamsters and similar animals for sale to pet shops may not register it as a|Farm vehicle\r\nLivestock\r\nPoultry

Commissioners Court authority to prohibit animals in a county courthouse that includes the offices of an independent elected official|Animals, commissioners court authority to prohibit animals in a county courthouse that includes the offices of an independent elected official|County Attorney, Commissioners Court authority to prohibit animals in a county courthouse that includes the offices of the county attorney|Animals, commissioners court authority to prohibit animals in a county courthouse that includes the offices of a county attorney

Fact question beyond the purview of an attorney general opinion. Whether any particular set of circumstances will result in liability is a

Killing of feral pigeons, a city may not by ordinance forbid but "pigeon shoot" may constitute cruelty to animals|Prohibition by ordinance of organized pigeon shoot may be, but is not necessarily preempted by Penal Code preemption provision unless ordinance is in conflict with cruelty to animals statute|Killing of feral pigeons explicitly authorized by Parks and Wildlife Code

Veterinarian may not refuse to return animal to owner upon demand, even in absence of payment of accrued charges|Veterinarian obligated to continue medical treatment for animal in his custody, but may recover from owner charges incurred|Veterinarian who has complied with notice requirements of section 801.357, Occupations Code, may after 12 days dispose of animal in custody|Medical treatment, veterinarian obligated to continue treatment for animal in custody, but may recover from owner charges incurred|Notice requirements of section 801.357 of Occupations Code, veterinarian who has complied with may after 12 days dispose of animal in custody|Payment of accrued charges, veterinarian may not refuse to return animal to owner on demand, even in the absence of|Abandoned animal

Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. ch. 12, does not appear to preempt Texas law criminalizing production or possession of horse-meat intended to be consumed by humans|Horse slaughter in Texas with meat intended for human consumption, local prosecutor may prosecute person who engages in|Horse slaughter in Texas with meat intended for human consumption, local prosecutors are authorized to prosecute violation of statutory prohibition|Horse slaughter in Texas with meat intended for human consumption, Commissioner of Health may investigate and local prosecutors may investigate and prosecute|Horse slaughter in Texas with meat intended for human consumption, Department has no authority to prosecute|Horse slaughter in Texas with meat intended for human consumption, Commissioner of Department may investigate|Agriculture

Dangerous wild animals, county required to adopt certificate of registration program for

Subchapter D, chapter 822 of the Health and Safety Code governs dangerous dogs and incorporates local regulation.  Under the home-rule amendment of the Texas Constitution, however, a municipality cannot adopt an ordinance that conflicts with or is inconsistent with state law. 

Section 822.042 allows thirty days for an owner to comply with the applicable requirements for owning a dangerous dog.  A municipal ordinance imposing a shorter compliance deadline cannot be harmonized with the statute and therefore the municipal ordinance provision would fall.

Subsection 822.0423(c-1) provides for an appeal bond in an amount established by the court.  A municipal ordinance seeking to change the amount of an appeal bond is unenforceable.  The section does not, however, purport to limit other fees or costs that a municipality may impose on an owner.

Though a municipal ordinance providing for the destruction of a dog running at large could be a valid exercise of a municipality’s police power, the government’s impoundment or destruction of personal property invokes the constitutional protection of due process of law.  A municipal ordinance affording an owner no process to redeem the dog or to appeal certain determinations whatsoever would likely fail a procedural due process challenge.  Moreover, section 822.0424 provides a right to appeal certain determinations made with respect to a dangerous dog and its owner.  And subsection 822.042(e) expressly protects a dangerous dog from destruction during the pendency of such an appeal.  A municipal ordinance providing for the destruction of a dangerous dog during the appeal is contrary to the statute and is unenforceable.

A municipality may exercise its powers only within its corporate limits unless its power is extended by law to apply to areas outside those limits.  Nothing in subchapter D authorizes a city to extend its dangerous dog ordinance outside of its city limits.

Estray laws are to be enforced by the county sheriff whether the county has adopted a local-option stock law or remains an open-range area.

Sworn complaints authorizing seizure of dangerous dogs under Health & Safety Code section 822.002 do not require personal knowledge, and the fact that the attack was unprovoked is not a required element for dog destruction under section 822.003.  The section 822.003 10-day hearing deadline is for both setting and conducting the hearing, but no provision in chapter 822 deprives a court of jurisdiction if a hearing is held outside of the 10-day deadline.