|
AZ - Domestic Violence - Chapter 36. Family Offenses. |
This Arizona law provides that, if a court issues an order of protection, the court may grant the petitioner the exclusive care, custody or control of any animal that is owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by the petitioner, the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of the petitioner or the respondent, and order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, committing an act of cruelty or neglect in violation of section 13- 2910 or otherwise disposing of the animal (see (G)(7)). |
|
AZ - Dog Ordinances - Powers and duties of board of supervisors (dogs/animals) |
This Arizona statute provides that each county board of supervisors may regulate dogs, including the designation of a county enforcement agent, contracting with any city or town to enforce the provisions of any ordinance enacted by such city or town for the control of dogs, and for the unincorporated areas of the county, by ordinance, regulate, restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs and the excessive and unrestrained barking of dogs. They may also establish either civil or criminal penalties for violations of the above ordinances and establish a rabies quarantine zone. |
|
AZ - Dog - Arizona Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Arizona statutes comprise the laws relating to dogs and animal bites. Included are provisions related to registration, collaring, and vaccination of dogs. With regard to dangerous dogs, Arizona law provides that a person with knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity must also keep the dog in an enclosed yard or confined area with a sign indicating the dog's vicious tendencies. |
|
AZ - Disaster planning - Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan |
This part of Arizona's emergency response plan describes the state's responsibility toward pets and service animals. |
|
AZ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes |
The Arizona section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment, fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control, inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal, or recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, among other things. Animal is defined as a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Exclusions include hunting and agricultural activities in accordance with those laws and regulations in Arizona. Intentionally attending a dogfight is a felony under this provision whereas attendance at a cockfight is a misdemeanor. |
|
AZ - Assistance Animal - Arizona's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. |
|
AWA - Birds - Subpart G. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds |
These AWA regulations comprise Subpart G for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds. |
|
Aversa v. Bartlett |
Plaintiff was awarded $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $200,000 for future pain and suffering after she was bitten in the face by Defendant's dog. Defendant appealed on the basis that the jury award for future pain and suffering was unreasonable compensation. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court modified the judgment to be $75,000 for past pain and suffering after Plaintiff stipulated to the decrease.
|
|
Austin v. Bundrick |
This Louisiana case involves a suit against the owner of a cow (Bundrick) that wandered into the road where it was struck by plaintiff Austin's vehicle. Bundrick and his insurer, Colony Insurance Company, appealed the partial summary judgment finding Bundrick liable for the damages resulting from the accident. In reversing the lower court's order for partial summary judgment and remanding for a trial on the merits, the court noted that it is well settled that when an auto strikes a cow on one of the enumerated "stock law" highways, the burden of proof rests upon the owner of the animal to exculpate himself from even the slightest degree of negligence.
|
|
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church (Unpublished) |
In this unpublished Connecticut opinion, the defendant-church owned property and leased a portion of the premises to one of its employees, Pedro Salinas. The plaintiff was attacked by a dog, owned by Salinas, while lawfully on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of defendant. On appeal, the court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant-church was a "harborer" of the dog under Connecticut law. Because Salinas and the church had no formal lease agreement, dispute existed as to the exact parameters of Salinas' exclusive control of the premises where his dog roamed. There also existed a material fact regarding the church's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities because it had twice previously attacked a person. (Note the jury trial decision in favor of plaintiff was later overturned in
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church
, --- A.2d ----, 94 Conn.App. 617, 2006 WL 797892 (Conn.App.)).
|
