Dog owner sought administrative review of ALJ’s determination that dog owner’s three Rottweilers were dangerous animals. The Circuit Court affirmed. Dog owner appealed.
The Appellate Court held that:
- City ordinance defining dangerous animal did not provide for defense of provocation where a dog provoked another dog, and
- ALJ’s consideration of witness’s testimony about prior altercation between one Rottweiler and witness’s dog did not deprive dog owner of right to fair hearing.