Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volosen v. State | 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tx.Crim.App. 2007) |
The appellant/defendant mauled a miniature dachshund to death after the dog entered a yard where the appellant kept his chickens. The State of Texas prosecuted the appellant/defendant for cruelty to animals on the ground that the appellant/defendant killed the dog without legal authority. The appellant/defendant, however, argued that section 822.033 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, an entirely different statute, provided that authority. After the appeals court reversed the district court’s decision to convict the defendant/appellant, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the appellant/defendant had failed to meet his burden of production to show the applicability of his claimed defense and thus reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case back to that court. |
Case | ||
| VOLPE VITO, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE | 58 Agric. Dec. 85 (1999) | 1999 WL 33314002 (U.S.D.A.) | Judicial officer is not required to accept ALJ's findings of fact, even when those findings are based on credibility determinations, and judicial officer is authorized to substitute his or her judgment for that of ALJ. | Case | |
| Vosburgh v. Kimball | 285 A.2d 766 (Vt. 1971) | 130 Vt. 27 (1971) |
This case involves an action by a dog owner against farmer for wrongfully impounding dogs and against town constable for wrongfully killing the dogs. The Vermont Supreme Court held that farmer had acted in a reasonable and prudent manner by contacting the constable, where he never intended to "impound" the dogs when he secured them overnight in his barn after finding them in pursuit of his injured cows. However, the issue of whether the dogs were wearing a collar as required by state law precluded the granting of a directed verdict for the constable. (Under state law, a constable was authorized to kill dogs not registered or wearing a prescribed collar.) The court held that it was necessary for the jury to make this determination. |
Case | |
| VT - Assistance animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 13 V.S.A. § 355; 9 V.S.A. § 4502 - 4507; 23 V.S.A. § 1057 | VT ST T 13 § 355; VT ST T 9 V§ 4502 - 4507; VT ST T 23 § 1057 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| VT - Brattleboro - Chapter 3: Animals and Fowl (Article 2: Dogs, Wolf-Hybrids) | Brattleboro, Vermont Code of Ordinances, Article 2: Dogs, Wolf-Hybrids, §§ 3-27 to 3-34 |
In Brattleboro, Vermont, owners or keepers of assistance dogs are exempt from the license surcharge fee, but are still required to pay a basic license fee plus a fee for the statewide rabies program. When obtaining a license, owners or keepers of assistance dogs must provide documentation of their assistance dog’s training. The following ordinances also indicate which dogs are eligible as assistance dogs. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| VT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 13 V.S.A. § 351 - 400; 20 V.S.A. § 2365b; 24 V.S.A. § 1943; 20 V.S.A. § 3201 - 3203 | VT ST T. 13 § 351 - 400; VT ST T. 20 § 2365b; VT ST T. 24 § 1943; VT ST T. 20 § 3201 - 3203 | This Vermont statutory section contains the amended anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. Animal cruelty, as defined by § 352, occurs when a person overworks, overloads, tortures, torments, abandons, administers poison to, cruelly beats or mutilates an animal, or deprives an animal which a person owns or possesses of adequate food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, or necessary medical attention. It is also animal cruelty if one owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting. The section excludes scientific research activities, hunting, farming, and veterinary activities among others. | Statute | |
| VT - Cruelty - § 5784. Forcible entry of motor vehicle to remove unattended child or animal | 12 V.S.A. § 5784 | VT ST T. 12 § 5784 | This Vermont law, enacted in 2016, provides that any person who forcibly enter a motor vehicle for the purpose of removing a child or animal from the motor vehicle shall not be subject to civil liability for damages arising from the forcible entry if certain steps are followed. | Statute | |
| VT - Disaster - Vermont Emergency Operations Plan SSF 11 | Appendix III, SSF #11 | The Vermont State Emergency Operations Plan (SEOP) is the basis for the Vermont emergency management system. The Vermont Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) is the primary state agency. The Base Plan includes language for an "incident management and disaster response teams include Domestic Animal and Wildlife Emergency Response." The State Support Functions (SSFs) number 11 listed in Appendix III deals with animals, but with a focus more on eradication of zoonotic outbreaks. | Administrative | ||
| VT - Disaster planning - § 3a. Emergency Management Division; duties; budget | 20 V.S.A. § 3a | This Vermont statute provides for the consideration of domestic animals in the state emergency management plan: "The strategy shall be designed to protect the lives and property, including domestic animals, of persons within this State who might be threatened as the result of all-hazards, and shall align State coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a unified and multidisciplined all-hazards approach to incident management." | Statute | ||
| VT - Dogs, Wolf-hybrids - Consolidated Dog Laws | 20 V.S.A. § 3511 - 3513; 3541 - 3817, 3901 - 3931, 4301 - 4304; 10 V.S.A. § 5001 - 5009, § 4748 | VT ST T. 20 § 3511 - 3513; 3541 - 3817, 3901 - 3931, 4301 - 4304; VT ST T.10 § 5001 - 5009, § 4748 | These Vermont statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing and control laws for both domestic dogs and wolf-hybrids, laws concerning the sale of dogs, and various wildlife/hunting laws that implicate dogs. | Statute |