The law governing “dangerous dogs” is not as well-defined as it should be, with jurisdiction often split between municipal and county courts. Procedures may vary widely from one municipality or county to another, including between a municipality and the county in which it is located. In an attempt to be brief, if a dog bites or otherwise attacks someone, the local animal control authority may take possession of the dog, and a judge must make a determination as to whether the dog meets certain criteria to be declared “dangerous” (a statutorily-defined term.) The law mandates various requirements on the owner of a “dangerous” dog, including maintaining extra insurance and keeping the dog in an approved enclosure. If the court finds that the dog caused the death of, or serious bodily injury to, a person, it can order the dog destroyed.

Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which covers regulation of non-livestock domestic animals (e.g. dogs, cats, etc.) does not provide specifics about appealing a municipal or county court’s determination that a dog is “dangerous”

In Romano v. Texas, a woman fostering a dog for a rescue group was bitten (the court says “attacked,” but I’m assuming one or more bites were involved) by the dog, an a Montgomery County justice of the peace ruled that the dog caused “serious bodily injury” and was to be destroyed pursuant to § 822.003(e) of the Health and Safety Code. The rescue group appealed to the county court, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, albeit without any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The group then appealed that dismissal to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

The appellate court reversed the county court’s ruling and remanded the case, holding that a party may appeal a justice court’s ruling to county court, even in the absence of specific statutory authorization. Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.0003(a), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.001(a). This is potentially very important, because it offers some structure to what is often a game of Whack-a-Mole between the various courts for a dog owner seeking a appeal a dangerous dog ruling.

In my own experience, county officials may (not entirely unjustifiably) claim confusion or ignorance about their own procedures, not only for appealing a dangerous dog ruling, but even for holding an initial hearing regarding an impounded dog. Since the dog is usually sitting in a quarantine cage the whole time a case is pending, having no idea what is going on and growing more agitated (and therefore giving the city or county more apparent evidence of its dangerousness) by the day, it is often a good idea to try to get a speedy resolution.

If you made it through my dry legal analysis, you deserve a reward. Here’s a puppy.

Photo credit: By Klijntjuh (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.