Florida Statute 767.135 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 767
DAMAGE BY DOGS; DANGEROUS DOGS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 767.135

767.135 Attack or bite by unclassified dog that causes death; confiscation; destruction.—If a dog that has not been declared dangerous attacks and causes the death of a human, the dog shall be immediately confiscated by an animal control authority, placed in quarantine, if necessary, for the proper length of time or held for 10 business days after the owner is given written notification under s. 767.12, and thereafter destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner. This 10-day time period shall allow the owner to request a hearing under s. 767.12. If the owner files a written appeal under s. 767.12 or this section, the dog must be held and may not be destroyed while the appeal is pending. The owner is responsible for payment of all boarding costs and other fees as may be required to humanely and safely keep the animal during any appeal procedure.

History.—s. 4, ch. 90-180; s. 4, ch. 93-13; s. 4, ch. 94-339; s. 3, ch. 2016-16.

Note.—Former s. 767.13(2).

F.S. 767.135 on Google Scholar

F.S. 767.135 on Casetext

Amendments to 767.135

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 767.135

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 767.135.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 767.135

Total Results: 15

JSZ Financial Co. v. Whipple

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-10-25

Citation: 939 So. 2d 1189, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17829, 2006 WL 3018107

Snippet: principles announced in Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813 (1931). In Hazen, a plaintiff had recovered

Cooper v. Gordon

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1980-10-21

Citation: 389 So. 2d 318

Snippet: wrongdoing still obtained. Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813, 816 (1931). We assume that the issuance

Fitzgerald v. Addison

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-12-07

Citation: 287 So. 2d 151

Snippet: prior payment. Hazen v. Smith, 1931, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813. *153 The purpose of an order relating

Durham v. Ellis

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1963-10-18

Citation: 157 So. 2d 185

Snippet: cited the cases of Hazen v. Smith, 1931, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813, and Masser v. London Operating Co, 1932

Floyd v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1962-03-21

Citation: 139 So. 2d 873

Snippet: 474, 145 So. 72, 79; Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 26

Mann v. Thompson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1960-02-18

Citation: 118 So. 2d 112

Snippet: 1957, 99 So.2d 231; Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813. [9] Waggoner v. Glacier Colony of Hutterites

State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-12-20

Citation: 99 So. 2d 231

Snippet: Fla. 9, 175 So. 905; Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813; Wall v. Johnson, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 362;

Wall v. Johnson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1955-05-13

Citation: 80 So. 2d 362

Snippet: affirmative on authority of Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. State, 77

Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Luke

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1945-12-04

Citation: 24 So. 2d 310, 156 Fla. 638, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 953

Snippet: of execution thereon. Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767,135 So. 813. We have also held that when a motion for

Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1943-09-24

Citation: 15 So. 2d 175, 153 Fla. 501, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 684

Snippet: order to that effect. Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813. Of course, this appellant did not appeal

State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Trammell

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1941-01-31

Citation: 200 So. 82, 146 Fla. 10

Snippet: Fla. 273, 102 So. 160; Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813; Ex Parte Turner, 73 Fla. 360, 74 So.

Dade County v. Snyder, Et Ux.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1938-10-31

Citation: 184 So. 489, 134 Fla. 756

Snippet: this general connection Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767,135 So. 813, and Florida Dairies Co. v. Ward, 131 Fla

Revell v. Dishong

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1937-07-31

Citation: 175 So. 905, 129 Fla. 9, 1937 Fla. LEXIS 1065

Snippet: entered had expired. In Hazen v. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 So. 813, we said: "The fact that plaintiff in

Holland v. McGill

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1932-12-21

Citation: 145 So. 210, 107 Fla. 444

Snippet: Sou. Rep. 136; Hazen v. Smith, Judge,101 Fla. 767, 135 Sou. Rep. 813.

Masser v. the London Operating Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1932-08-23

Citation: 145 So. 72, 106 Fla. 474

Snippet: with approval by us in Hazen vs. Smith, 101 Fla. 767, 135 Sou. Rep. 813. See also Fleming vs. Reddick, 5