ILCS » Chapter 510 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

510 ILCS 5/1 (2026)

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Animal Control Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(510 ILCS 5/1) (from Ch. 8, par. 351)
    Sec. 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Animal Control Act.
(Source: P.A. 78-795.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Beggs v. Griffith, 913 N.E.2d 1230 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beggs v. Griffith, 913 N.E.2d 1230 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “Under these circumstances, Melody contended that Griffith maintained some control over the horses akin to an owner within the purview of the Animal Control Act (the Act) (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2004)). Initially, Melody only sued Griffith, but upon learning that the horses…”
Severino v. Freedom Woods, Inc., 941 N.E.2d 180 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging damages pursuant to the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2002)) and negligence.”
Fayezi v. Illinois Cas. Co., 2016 IL App (1st) 150873 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “On that basis, the trial court dismissed one count of the plaintiff’s complaint alleging violation of the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2010)). Id. ¶ 37 On appeal, the Fourth District concluded that “section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code was the wrong vehicle for [the…”
Zaragoza v. Ebenroth, 770 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “JUSTICE HOMER delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff Barbara Zaragoza sued defendants Tracy Ebenroth, Deb Arnold, and Joshua Keehn for negligence , and violation of the Illinois Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2000)) after sustaining injuries during a dog…”
Cnty. of Cook v. Vill. of Bridgeview, 2014 IL App (1st) 122164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “) (now 510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2010)) in an effort to, among other things, control the stray animal population and prevent and control the spread of rabies in Illinois.”
Frost v. Robave, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 581 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “nd nights at the business, the employee took the dog to work for his personal convenience, the business did not in any way benefit from the dog’s presence, and the business entity did not have care, custody, or control of the dog at the time of the attack, it is neither a keeper…”
Wilson v. City of Decatur, 906 N.E.2d 795 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “JUSTICE TURNER delivered the opinion of the court: In December 2006, plaintiff, Constance Wilson, filed a complaint against defendant, the City of Decatur (City), under the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 through 35 (West 2006)), seeking to recover damages sustained when a dog…”
Smith v. Lane, 832 N.E.2d 947 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “She alleged both negligence and strict liability under the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1996)). The defendants filed a motion pursuant to section 2 — 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619 (West 1996)) to dismiss the complaint, asserting that…”
Kolacki v. Verink, 893 N.E.2d 717 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Ramona Kolacki, brought suit against defendants, Laura and Randall Verink, alleging violation of the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2006)) and negligence based on premises liability for injuries…”
Kush v. Wentworth, 790 N.E.2d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “As amended, plaintiffs complaint contained three counts alleging, respectively, that defendant violated the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2000)), that defendant was negligent, and that defendant’s conduct was willful and wanton.”
Dzierwa v. Ori, 2020 IL App (2d) 190722 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “Dzierwa asserted claims under a theory of negligence and under the Animal Control Act (Act) (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2018)). The Oris moved for summary judgment on 2020 IL App (2d) 190722 the claims against them.”
Docherty v. Sadler, 689 N.E.2d 332 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “Minor plaintiff’s father brought a complaint under the Animal Control Act (Act) (510 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 1996)). Defendant moved to dismiss, stating minor plaintiff was an "owner” for purposes of the Act and thereby exempt from protection under the Act.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
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.