Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ - Leash Laws - Article 6. Animal Control. | A. R. S. § 11-1012 | AZ ST § 11-1012 | This Arizona laws provides generally that no female dog in her breeding season or vicious dog may be allowed to go at large. It further delineates the state's leash requirements for dogs, including during times of rabies quarantines, in state parks, and at public schools. Exceptions under the law include the training of livestock dogs and hunting dogs, among others. | Statute |
| AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation. | A. R. S. § 9-219 (repealed 2017) | AZ ST § 9-219 | §§ 9-211 to 9-226. Repealed by Laws 2016, Ch. 62, § 9, eff. Jan. 1, 2017 (related to powers of the board of trustees) | Statute |
| AZ - Phoenix - Chapter 8 - ANIMALS. | Chapter 8 |
The following comprises Phoenix, Arizona's animal-related ordinances. Topics include the keeping of reptiles or wild animals, vicious animal provisions, and sections addressing animal cruelty. An entire article (Article IV) deals with the confinement of animals in motor vehicles. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Bacon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ryan | 1995 CarswellSask 540 | [1996] 3 W.W.R. 215, 27 C.C.L.T. (2d) 308, 138 Sask. R. 297 |
The child plaintiff was bitten on the face by a pitbull owned by the defendants, requiring reconstructive surgery and two days hospitalization and causing permanent scarring. The dog had bitten the owner's young son two weeks earlier while he played near the dog's food dish'; they contemplated having the dog euthanized but decided against it. The plaintiff's mother had heard about the bite incident but brought her daughter of the same age as the owner's son to visit, placing her on the floor where the dog bit her shortly after. The judge held that the defendants knew of the dog's propensity to bite young children but kept it ''at their peril" (suggesting strict liability or scienter, which was not however mentioned); such fault was sufficient to make the owners 2/3 liable for the child's $12,000 plastic surgery costs, pain and mental anguish. The plaintiff's mother was held 1/ contributorily liable for letting her child visit and play on the floor near the dog, knowing of its propensity. |
Case |
| Bailey v. Veitch | 814 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2006) | 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 03192 |
In this New York memorandum opinion, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that fact issues remained as to whether injuries sustained by child were caused by dog, and whether defendants knew or should have known of dog's vicious propensities. At the time of the alleged bite, the four-year-old child was alone in a room with the dog and sustained a gaping laceration on her nose and multiple puncture wounds on her face. The court also determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the dog previously displayed vicious tendencies where the dog bit its owner's grandson on the hand two weeks prior to the instant incident. |
Case |
| Banks v. Adair | 251 S.E.2d 88 (Ga.App., 1978) | 148 Ga.App. 254 (Ga.App., 1978) |
In this Georgia dog bite case, plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict for the defendant. The Court of Appeals held that the verdict was properly directed for defendant where there was no evidence that established the defendant's knowledge of his dog's propensity to bite or injure humans.
|
Case |
| Barger v. Jimerson | 276 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1954) | 130 Colo. 459 (1954) |
In order for liability to attach in an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from a dog attack, defendants had to have notice of the vicious propensities of their dog. Even though the dog had never attacked a person before, a natural fierceness or disposition to mischief was sufficient to classify the dog as "vicious." Finally, it is permissible for the jury to consider the loss of earning capacity of plaintiff resulting from the injuries as an element of damages. |
Case |
| Bassani v. Sutton | Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1734857 (E.D.Wash.) |
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit in 2008 claiming money damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988,and alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In 2004, plaintiffs two dogs were seized by Yakima County Animal Control after responding to a citizen's report that he had been menaced by dogs as he ran past plaintiff's house. Before the court here are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. In granting the motions, the court held that the doctrine of res judicata did warrant a grant of summary judgment as defendants' failure to release plaintiff's dog. Further, the animal control officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably relied on the deputy prosecuting attorney's advice. Finally, there was no evidence of a pattern of behavior on the part of Yakima County sufficient to be a "moving force" behind a constitutional violation. |
Case | |
| Bates (Guardian of) v. Horkoff | 1991 CarswellAlta 229 | 84 Alta. L.R. (2d) 236, 119 A.R. 270 |
The child plaintiff was at her daycare under appropriate supervision while in the playground when she was bitten on the hand by a neighbouring German Shepherd. The dog squeezed through an unmended gap in the fence and bit the child while she was on the swings; daycare staff were not negligent in supervising the children. While the dog had no history of biting, it was excitable and barked aggressively towards strangers outside the yard; the fence was in poor repair, but the owner had not thought it necessary to use the secure dog run that existed on his property. he was found negligent for not better securing and supervising the dog. |
Case |
| Bates v. Constable | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) |
A son obtained a dog from defendant for his father to have as a pet. The dog bit the father and the father sued defendant for failing to warn him of the dog's vicious propensities. The Court held the defendant did not owe the second transferee of the dog a duty to warn and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. |
Case |