In my head, I know that the legal "threat" isn't much of a concern because it can't be proven that it was my maintenance person's dog that killed the cat and not a coyote.  

Then, there is your ability to fend off initial threats by a tenant, I draw my sabre pretty quickly and aggressively defend any claim in a direct manner letting any claimant know they'll be on the losing end.

This does not mean, however, that a developer may not use the threat of seeking specific performance as a tactic to coerce the buyer to close.

There needs to be a real enough threat of foreclosure to create an incentive for home owners to do a short sale to clear the inventory.

That way I don't have to deal with threats from the water department and I have trash service when I do a turnover.

You cannot discriminate against breeds - you can only discriminate against the animal if that specific animal is a threat to others safety or health.

If neither of the tenants are actively a threat or danger to themselves, or others; or breaking the law.

A threat to kill someone's family is not a thing to take lightly.

Maybe the threat of recourse will get the seller to settle and you can recoup something.

If one of the parties "threatened to shoot people", it is the responsibility of the bailiff to investigate the credibility of that threat and if the bailiff is not qualified to investigate, then it is his responsibility to call a deputy who is qualified.