Legal Opinion

Caswell County v. Hanks

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 17, 1995No. COA94-802PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Defendants contend that the trial court erred by conducting only a de novo review of the existing record rather than a de novo hearing. We agree.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 67-4.1 provides the following procedures for determining whether a dog is potentially dangerous:

The county or municipal authority responsible for animal control shall designate a person or a Board to be responsible for determining when a dog is a “potentially dangerous dog” and shall designate a separate Board to hear any appeal. The person or Board making the determination that a dog is a “potentially dangerous…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Lone Star Gas Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  4. In Re BurrusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  5. State v. BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Manning v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
  2. Manning v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
  3. State v. HinesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. In re: Est. of JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
  5. State v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API