Missouri

Summary: In Springfield, Missouri, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull, with exceptions made for animal shelters, dog shows, dog groomers, and registered dogs. The owner must sterilize the dog, keep it properly confined, and post “Pit Bull Dog” signs. Failure to comply could result in impoundment and destruction of the dog.

Summary: In Liberty, Missouri, it is be unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions for pit bull dogs already residing in the city. Such dogs may remain as long as the owner complies with certain requirements, such as proper registration, proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog-Pit Bull," keeping $50,000 liability insurance, and taking identification photographs. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation may be subject to seizure and impoundment.

Summary: The municipal code of Independence, Missouri makes it unlawful to own, possess, transport, or sell any pit bull with exceptions. However, the pit bull ban does not apply to registered show dogs that meet certain requirements or dogs whose owners have received a pit bull license on or before the date the ordinance was enacted. Requirements for ownership include an owner who is at least 18 years old, sterilization of the dog, and liability insurance of at least $300,000. Violations may result in a fine of $500, 60 days in jail, and immediate sterilization of the dog, impoundment, and disposal.

Summary: In Florissant, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull, except pit bulls licensed on the effective date are allowed. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as owners taking identifying photographs, keeping the dog properly confined and/or secured, posting a "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull" sign, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and sterilizing the dog. A violation may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog.

Summary: In Ferguson, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull, with exceptions for dogs in the city on the effective date of the ordinance. Such dogs must be registered and properly confined, or else kept on a leash and a muzzle. Owners must post "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull" signs, keep liability insurance, and photographs for identification purposes. Violations may result in fines and imprisonment, as well as the seizure and impoundment of the dog.

Summary: In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city.

Summary: Cameron, Missouri repealed its ordinance that prohibited the keeping of pit bull dogs on November 21, 2016. Before that, it was unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any Pit Bull dog as defined in the previous law.

Summary: The defendants were convicted and sentenced upon an information under section 1609, Revised Statutes of 1879, charging them with unlawfully, wilfully and cruelly overdriving a horse, and thereupon prosecute this appeal. The court held that the evidence that a horse was overdriven does not warrant a conviction under Revised Statutes, 1879, section 1609, in the absence of proof, that the overdriving was wilful and not accidental. Thus, the court reversed the lower court.

Summary: Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded.  The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing).  The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right.

Summary: Plaintiff, a licensed veterinarian, appeals from the circuit court's order dismissing his case in a wrongful discharge case. Plaintiff contends that as an at-will employee he stated a cause of action for wrongful discharge under Missouri's public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. Specifically, he pleaded that he was retaliated against and discharged because he performed a regulatory protected activity, i.e., reporting violations of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143. The court agreed and reversed and remanded.