Caswell County v. Hanks
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Lone Star Gas Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1941
- In Re BurrusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Manning v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
- Manning v. HuntCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997
- State v. HinesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- In re: Est. of JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
- State v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.