No person shall own or harbor a dog or dogs which is or are a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition or excessive barking or other disturbance, or, by such barking or other disturbance, is or are a source of annoyance to any sick person residing in the immediate vicinity. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction for the first offense and a class D misdemeanor for each subsequent offense and the court or judge may make such order concerning the restraint or disposal of such dog or dogs as may be deemed necessary.
(1949 Rev., S. 3411; 1953, S. 1849d; 1957, P.A. 75; 1969, P.A. 116; P.A. 76-381, S. 36; P.A. 12-80, S. 80.)
History: 1969 act rephrased provisions, deleting necessity for formal complaint, investigation, etc.; P.A. 76-381 rephrased provisions, specified that violation is an infraction re first offense and that for subsequent offenses fine and/or imprisonment is the penalty, raising maximum fine from $25 to $100; P.A. 12-80 replaced penalty for subsequent offense of a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days or both with a class D misdemeanor.
The “order” concerning restraint of dog must concern a specific dog or dogs. 127 C. 74.
Cited. 8 CA 188. State not required to prove identity of the specific dog or dogs causing the nuisance. 81 CA 141.
Selectmen may not make orders affecting all owners of dogs; they are limited to specific dogs. 7 CS 418.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
State v. Olson, 511 A.2d 379 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
State v. Olson, 511 A.2d 379 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 8× “The defendant appeals from the judgment of her conviction 1 by the trial court of owning dogs which by their excessive barking caused a nuisance and were a source of annoyance to a sick person residing in the immediate vicinity, in violation of General Statutes § 22-363. 2 The…”
Demers v. Rosa, 925 A.2d 1165 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” 2 The second, third and fourth counts of the complaint alleged violations of General Statutes §§ 22-363, 22-357 and 22-364.”
Miller v. Dept. of Agric., 145 A.3d 393 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff nonetheless argues that "[s]ince the seizure and subsequent [disposal] orders [concerning her dogs] were the result of an arrest of [the plaintiff], the proceedings to determine whether [the dogs] should be destroyed were quasi-criminal, and, therefore, [the…”
Kronovitter v. Doyle, 41 A.3d 1108 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “shall submit to the town clerk a rabies certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian, or a copy thereof, stating that such dog has been vaccinated against rabies 10 General Statutes § 22-363 provides in relevant part: “No person shall own or harbor a dog or dogs which is or are…”
State v. Acker, 838 A.2d 1016 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 10× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, in a prosecution under General Statutes § 22-363, 1 also known as our “nuisance dog” statute, the state must prove the identity of the specific dog or dogs causing the nuisance.”
State v. Ancona, 991 A.2d 663 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “1 The defendant also was charged with and found not guilty of nuisance in violation of General Statutes § 22-363.”
Hammond v. Long (D. Conn. 2025).
· cites it 9× “§ 22-364 (a) (1996) (amended 2023),4 which forbids, in part, allowing a dog “to roam at large upon the land of another and not under control of the owner or keeper,” and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-363 , which provides that the first offense of someone owning or harboring a dog that…”
Hammond v. Long (D. Conn. 2024).
· cites it 5× “§ 22-364 (a), which forbids, in part, allowing a dog “to roam at large upon the land of another and not under control of the owner or keeper,” and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-363 , which provides that the first offense of someone owning or harboring a dog that is a nuisance “by reason…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.