Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Widlife - Ley 26.600, 2010 | Ley 26.600 | This Ley approved the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, adopted in Caracas, Venezuela. | Statute | |
| WY - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. 1977 § 6-5-211; § 11-31-101 - 108; § 11-31-201 - 214; § 11-31-301; § 15-1-103; § 23-3-109; § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 6-5-211; § 11-31-101 - 108; § 11-31-201 - 214; § 11-31-301; § 15-1-103; § 23-3-109; § 33-30-215 | These Wyoming statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include damage done to livestock by dogs, rabies vaccination requirements, and municipal powers to regulate dogs. | Statute |
| SC - Bite - § 47-3-110. Liability for attacks by dogs, provoked attacks, trained law enforcement dogs. | Code 1976 § 47-3-110 | SC ST § 47-3-110 | This South Carolina statute provides that if a person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog while the person is in a public place or is lawfully in a private place, including the property of the dog owner or person having the dog in the person's care or keeping, the dog owner or person having the dog in the person's care or keeping is liable for the damages suffered by the person bitten or otherwise attacked. If a person provokes a dog into attacking him then the owner of the dog is not liable. | Statute |
| Safford Animal Hospital v. Blain | 580 P.2d 757 (Ariz.App.,1978) | 119 Ariz. 296 (1978) |
Appellant animal hospital sought review of the judgment entered against it for the injuries suffered by an individual after a cow escaped from the hospital and struck the man who owned the house to which the cow had run as the man tried to help the veterinarian secure the animal. The court held that appellant's liability is predicated upon its position as an owner or occupier of land whose duty with regard to the keeping of domestic animals is circumscribed under a bailment theory. Further the court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that appellant negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. |
Case |
| U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection | 867 A.2d 1147 (N.J. 2005) | 182 N.J. 461 (S. Ct. 2005) |
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife executed an administrative order preventing the issuance of bear hunting permits. Hunters and hunting organizations sought judicial review of the administrative decision. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ultimately held it was within the authority of the Environmental Protection Commissioner to approve policies of the Fish & Wildlife Council and, therefore, execute the administrative order against bear hunting permits. |
Case |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6551. Notification by individuals finding companion animals; penalty | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6551 | VA ST § 3.2-6551 | This recent Virginia statute provides that any individual who finds a companion animal and provides care shall, within 48 hours, make a reasonable attempt to notify the owner of the companion animal, if the owner can be ascertained from any tag, license, collar, tattoo, or other form of identification and notify the pound that serves the locality where the companion animal was found. Any individual who violates this section may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50 per companion animal. | Statute |
| OH - Breeder - Chapter 956. Dog Breeding Kennels; Dog Retailers. | R.C. § 956.01 - 99 | OH ST § 956.01 - 99 | This section represents Ohio's commercial dog breeding laws. Under the chapter, a "high volume breeder" is defined as an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains six or more breeding dogs and: (1) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells five or more adult dogs or puppies in any calendar year to dog brokers or pet stores; (2) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells forty or more puppies in any calendar year to the public; or (3) Keeps, houses, and maintains, at any given time in a calendar year, more than forty puppies that are under four months of age, that have been bred on the premises of the establishment, and that have been primarily kept, housed, and maintained from birth on the premises of the establishment. High volume breeders have additional duties under the law related to well-being of the dogs kept. The chapter also details requirements for licenses and/or registrations for high volume breeders, rescues, and dog brokers. Inspections are also outlined in the chapter, with high volume breeders having a requirement of at least one inspection annually. Penalties for violation of provisions, availability of injunctions, and revocation of licenses is also covered. | Statute |
| BROWN v. TOWN OF SOUTHBURY | 53 Conn. 212, 1 A. 819 (1885) | 53 Conn. 212, 1 A. 819 |
This Connecticut decision in 1885 held consequential losses as a result of the harm to an animal (a horse) to be a proper element of damages in addition to the fair market value of the animal. Specifically, the court applied fair market value, but disallowed consequential damages for lost profits where plaintiff failed to show an effort to mitigate such damages. |
Case |
| Hass v. Money | 849 P.2d 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993) |
While the Moneys (Defendants) were on vacation, they boarded their dog at Peppertree Animal Clinic (Peppertree). On June 16, 1990, Julie Hass (Plaintiff), an employee of Peppertree, was bitten by the dog while walking him. The Court reverses the Defendants' summary judgment and remands to the trial court because the dog bite statute applies a strict liability standard and that the owner of a dog is only the person who has legal right to the dog. |
Case | |
| People v. Lee (Unpublished) | 2004 WL 2914207 (Mich. App.) (Unpublished) |
Known and suspected dogfighters, Roderick Lee, Shedrick Lee, and Demar Garvin were jointly tried before a single jury for drug-related offenses. The jury convicted each defendant of conspiracy to deliver or possess with intent to deliver 650 or more grams of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced each defendant to a prison term of 30 to 60 years. Defendants appealed on equal protection grounds, on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, on grounds of insufficient evidence and of improper admission of prejudicial and/or irrelevant evidence, on grounds of improper jury instruction, and further argued that they were entitled to resentencing. The appellate court confirmed the convictions and sentences. |
Case |