Results
Displaying 541 - 550 of 568
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What Due Process Should be Provided to Dog Owners Before the Government can Remove or Euthanize Their Dogs? | Jennifer C. Wang | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This article discusses what due process rights dog owners must receive before the government can remove or euthanize their dogs. |
Article | |
| Whelen v. Barlow | 1975 CarswellAlta 242 | [1976] W.W.D. 35 |
Plaintiff Whelen was drunken, threatening and disorderly in defendant Barlow's hotel bar, where he kept guard dogs for the purpose of preventing break-ins and keeping the peace. After the plaintiff and friends were asked to leave the premises and not return, he later returned, making threatening gestures and was bitten on the face and arm by one of the guard-dogs. The court held that the plaintiff was 2/3 contributorily liable for his injuries, since when he returned he was trespassing; the defendant was 1/3 contributorily liable since the court held that keeping volatile guard-dogs as bouncers was not reasonable. |
Case | |
| White v Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y | 138 A.D.3d 1470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) | 2016 WL 1710974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) | Plaintiff, Rosemary White brought action against the Defendant, Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she was bitten by a priests’ dog, at premises owned by the church. White brought the action claiming negligent supervision and retention of the priest who owned dog. The church moved to dismiss, and White moved for summary judgment. The New York Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the church's motion for dismissal, and denied White’s motion. White appealed and the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the church was not liable for negligent supervision or retention of the priest. The Appellate Division, reasoned that the Supreme Court, Erie County, properly granted the church’s motion to dismiss White’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Court stated that to the extent White alleged a theory of negligent supervision and retention of the priest in her bill of particulars, the “purpose of the bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings . . . , and [it] may not be used to supply allegations essential to a cause of action that was not pleaded in the complaint.” Therefore, the order from the Supreme Court was affirmed. | Case | |
| White v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company | 106 A.3d 1159 (N.H., 2014) | 167 N.H. 153 (2014) | This is an appeal brought by Susan and Peter White to a declaratory judgment that her son, Charles Matthews, was not covered under Susan's homeowner's insurance policy with the respondent.The incident that led to this case involved Matthews' dog causing injury to Susan while at the home covered by the policy. The policy covered the insurer and residents of their home who are relatives, so Susan attempted to collect from Vermont Mutual for the damage done by the dog. However, her claim was denied because Matthews was deemed to not be a resident of the home. This court affirms. | Case | |
| Who Let the Dangerous Dogs Out? The German State's Hasty Legislative Action, the Federal Law on Dangerous Dogs and the "Kampfhunde" Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court | Claudia E. Haupt | 2 Journal of Animal Law 27 (2006) |
The article examines the legislative measures taken at the state and federal level in Germany to address the issue of dangerous dogs and the related decision of the Federal Constitutional Court which upheld an import ban on dangerous dogs while striking down a breeding ban and parts of a newly introduced section to the Criminal Code. |
Article | |
| WI - Dangerous dog - 174.11. Claims for damage by dogs to domestic animals including ranch mink | W. S. A. 174.11 | WI ST 174.11 | This Wisconsin provides that the owner of any domestic animal, including a ranch mink, which is attacked, chased, injured or killed by a dog may, within 3 days after the owner has knowledge or notice thereof, file a written claim for damages with the clerk of the town, village or city in which the damage occurred. A hearing then occurs where witnesses may be subpoenaed under oath, and testimony relative to the claim is taken. The county board shall allow, as the amount of a claim for a domestic animal, including a ranch mink, injured by a dog, the amount determined to be the total of the costs resulting from the injury including a loss in fair market value but the total amount of the claim may not exceed the fair market value. | Statute | |
| WI - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. A. 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | WI ST 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | These Wisconsin statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include dog licensing provisions, hunting laws impacting dogs, and seizure of dogs by humane officers. | Statute | |
| WI - Dog Bite - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.12. Actions against owners | W. S. A. 174.12 | WI ST 174.12 | This Wisconsin statute outlines the allowance procedure by counties for damage done by dogs after a claim is filed and the county sues to recover from the owner of the damaging dog. The claimant shall first be notified that such action is contemplated and shall have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to offer further evidence in support of the claimant's claim. It also provides that this chapter shall not in any way limit the existing right or authority of any town, village or city to pass ordinances for the keeping and regulating of dogs, or repeal or annul any existing statute or ordinance or local regulation governing the keeping and regulating of dogs. | Statute | |
| WI - Dog, licenses - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.06. Listing | W. S. A. 174.06 | WI ST 174.06 | This Wisconsin statute provides that every town, village and city shall annually, by September 1, ascertain by diligent inquiry the dogs owned or kept within the assessment district. The listing official shall enter in the records for personal property assessments, or in a separate record, all dogs in the district subject to tax, to whom they are assessed, the name, number, sex, spayed or unspayed, neutered or unneutered, breed and color of each dog. | Statute | |
| WI - South Milwaukee - Vicious dog - § 23.20 REGULATING VICIOUS DOGS. | SOUTH MILWAUKEE, WI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 23.20 | In 2017, the City of South Milwaukee amended its section on "vicious dogs" to remove the prohibition on the keeping of dogs described as "pit bull dogs." This ban was repealed on June 27, 2017. | Local Ordinance |