Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.070. Dangerous dogs and related definitions | West's RCWA 16.08.070 | WA ST 16.08.070 | This Washington statute provides the definitions related to dangerous dogs, including dangerous dog, potentially dangerous dog, severe injury, and owner, among others. | Statute |
| WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.040. Dog bites. Liability and Dangerous dogs and related provisions. | West's RCWA 16.08.010 - 110 | WA ST 16.08.010 - 110 | This Washington statute outlines the state's dangerous dog laws. Under the law, the owner or keeper of any dog shall be liable to the owner of any animal killed or injured by such dog for the amount of damages sustained in a civil action. Further, there is strict liability for the owner of any dog that bites any person while in a public place or lawfully on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense to an action for damages. | Statute |
| WA - Buckely - Breed - Chapter 9.10 (Pit Bull Ordinance) | BUCKELY, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 9.10.020, 9.10.260 - 9.10.300 (2008) |
In Buckely, Washington, pit bulls are defined to be “dangerous dogs." Such dogs are considered to be a public nuisance and shall be humanely destroyed or removed from the city. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Vukic v. Brunelle | 609 A.2d 938 (R.I. 1992) | This case involves a defendants' appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court wherein the dog officer of the town of Lincoln was found to have negligently destroyed a Great Dane dog and her pup. The court held that the Rhode Island statute that mandated an officer kill a dog at large preempted the local ordinance that allowed impoundment. Despite the dog owners' arguments that the statute was outdated and archaic, the court refused to invalidate it. It thus reversed the jury award to the dog owners. | Case | |
| VT - Lost dog - Article 2. Killing Unlicensed Dogs; Subchapter 5. Control of Rabies | 20 V.S.A. § 3621 - 3626; 20 V.S.A. § 3806 - 3809 | VT ST T. 20 § 3621 - 3626; VT ST T. 20 § 3806 - 3809 | These Vermont statute provide the law for seizure, confinement of, and destruction of dogs and domestic wolf-hybrids. It also includes a warrant form necessary for local authorities to seize and impound an offending dog or wolf-hybrid. | Statute |
| VT - Hunting - § 4502 Uniform point system; revocation of license. | 10 V.S.A. § 4502 | VT ST T. 10 § 4502 | Vermont has a point system for hunting licenses similar to that used for driver's licenses. Certain enumerated violations, including taking bear or deer with dogs, earn points which can result in the suspension or revocation of a hunting license (see (2)(N)). A game warden may shoot a dog who is pursuing a deer or moose close enough to endanger its life, or a fine may be issued. | Statute |
| VT - Dogs, Wolf-hybrids - Consolidated Dog Laws | 20 V.S.A. § 3511 - 3513; 3541 - 3817, 3901 - 3915, 4301 - 4304; 10 V.S.A. § 5001 - 5009, § 4748 | VT ST T. 20 § 3511 - 3513; 3541 - 3817, 3901 - 3915, 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 | |
| Volosen v. State | 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App., 2007) | 2007 WL 1752803 (Tex. Crim. App.) |
Appellant killed neighbor's miniature dachshund with a maul when he found it among his chickens in his backyard, and he defends that Health & Safety Code 822 gave him legal authority to do so. At the bench trial, the judge found him guilty of animal cruelty, but on appeal the court reversed the conviction because it found that the statute gave him legal authority to kill the attacking dog. However, this court held that appellant did not meet his burden of production to show that the statute was adopted in Colleyville, TX and found as a matter of fact that the dog was not "attacking." |
Case |