Texas Attorney General Opinion: MW-154 Page: 1 of 4
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Attorney General of Texas
March 24, 1980MARK WHITE
Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
P.O. Box 12548
Austin. TX. 78711
51 2/475-2501
701 Commerce, Suite 200
Dallas. TX 75202
214/742-8944
4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160
El Paso, TX. 79905
915/533-3484
723 Main, Suite 610
Houston, TX. 77002
713/228-0701
806 Broadway. Suite 312
Lubbock, TX 79401
806/747-5238
4313 N Tenth . Suite F
McAllen, TX 78501
512/682-4547
200 Main Plaza, Suite 400
San Antonio, TX 78205
512/225-4191
An Equal Opportunity/
Affirmative Action EmployerHonorable Bill Stubblefield
Williamson County Attorney
Georgetown, Texas 78626Opinion No. MW-154
Re: Constitutionality of a county
dog ordinance based on article
192-3, V.T.C.S.Dear Mr. Stubblefield:
You ask two questions concerning a county ordinance that authorizes
the killing of dogs for attacking domestic animals. The ordinance adopts
article 192-3, V.T.C.S., which includes the following provision:
Any dog, whether registered and tagged or not,
when found attacking any sheep, goats, calves, and/or
domestic animals or fowls, or which has recently
made, or is about to make such attack on any sheep,
goats, calves, and/or other domestic animals and
fowls, may be killed by anyone present and witnessing
or having knowledge of such attack and without
liability in damage to the owner of such dog....
Sec. 3. You wish to know whether this provision violates constitutional
protections against taking of property without due process of law.
It is well established that property which is dangerous to the safety of
the community may be summarily destroyed without violating due process of
law. Sentell v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 166 U.S. 698 (1897); Cannon v. City
of Dallas, 263 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Civ. App.- El Paso 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
A vicious dog which endangers the safety of property may be lawfully killed.
City of Garland v. White, 368 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. Civ. App. - Eastland 1963,
writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Statutes similar in most respects to that at issue here have been
upheld in a number of jurisdictions. A Colorado statute, whose validity was
sustained in Failing v. People, 98 P.2d 865 (Colo. 1940), provided that "any
dog found running, worrying or injuring sheep or cattle may be killed." 98
P.2d, at 866. In New Jersey, the statute permitted the destruction by any
person of "a dog ... which is found chasing, worrying, wounding or
destroying any sheep, lamb, poultry or domestic animal." Bunn v. Shaw, 69p. 495
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: MW-154, text, March 24, 1980; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth271999/m1/1/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.