Flowers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (2009). Introduction: Raising a novel issue, Christopher L. Flowers (Flowers) asks this Court to review an order of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) recommitting him as a technical parole violator to serve twelve months’ backtime. Flowers challenges the Board’s determination that he violated his parole by failing to refrain from assaultive behavior when a dog under his control attacked his parole officer. We affirm.
Underwood v. Wind (2008 PA Super 158). Decision: In summary, we affirm the August 17, 2007, judgment of damages and delay damages as against appellant Wind. Said same judgment is vacated as to appellant Kasprzyk, and her case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion. Judgment affirmed as to appellant Wind; judgment vacated as to appellant Kasprzyk. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Greta Seyler (2007). Decision: Gretta R. Seyler (Seyler) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court) which found her guilty of two counts each of violating Sections 305 and 502-A of the Dog Law,1 and guilty of two counts of violating Section 8 of the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act (Rabies Act),2 all of which are summary offenses. We affirm.
Stacie Stankiewicz and Kenneth Steeves, Sr., Appellants v. City of Reading (2007). Summary: In this appeal, we consider the validity of various provisions of a local ordinance relating to “aggressive” or “dangerous” dogs in light of Section 507- A(c) of the Pennsylvania Dog Law Act (State Dog Law),2 which abrogates those provisions of local ordinances relating to “dangerous dogs.” Based on the clear language of Section 507-A(c), we conclude the local ordinance here is a nullity. In October 1998, the City of Reading (City) adopted Bill No. 30-98, “An Ordinance Amending Article 705 of the [City’s] Codified Ordinances Animal Control Ordinance” (Ordinance). Certified Record, Item #8 at Ex. A. The City later amended the Ordinance in 1999. Of particular relevance here, the Ordinance identifies certain breeds of dogs deemed to be “aggressive.” February 26, 2008: The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County is REVERSED, thus granting summary judgment in favor of Appellants Stacie Stankiewicz and Kenneth Steeves, Sr.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Austin, Appellant 846 A.2d 798 (Pa. 2004). Decision: Robert Austin (Austin) appeals his conviction by the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County of the summary offense of harboring a dangerous dog as set forth in Section 502-A of the Dog Law.1 We affirm the trial court.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Glumac (1997). Decision: Appellant David Glumac brings this direct appeal from his summary criminal conviction for confinement of dogs, 3 P.S. § 459-305. Appellant received a citation for violating 3 P.S. § 459-305, was found guilty by a district justice and immediately instituted a statutory appeal for a trial de novo before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Appellant was convicted and received a fine of $100.00 plus costs. This appeal followed. We affirm.
Related Links – Dog Attack Statistics in Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania Dog Bite, Dog Attacks and Fatal Dog Attack Statistics
- Pennsylvania Ranks 4th in the Nation for the Highest Number of Pit Bull Dog Attacks
- Alleghany, PA County Ranks Highest in U.S. for Number of Pit Bull Attacks
- Number of Registered Dangerous Dogs in Pennsylvania
- Dog Bite News Articles About Recent Dog Attacks in Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania Dangerous Dog Laws and Dog Statutes
The links to the opinions above are only available in PDF format and require the free Acrobat reader, version 6.0 or later. The latest version can be obtained through the link button below.
