Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Queretaro |
Querétaro is one of the 32 Mexican federal unities and one of the smallest. It is a historical city, located in the middle of the country. Querétaro has laws in place to protect animals, such as the Animal Protection Law and provisions within the Criminal Code. |
Policy | ||||||||
| Koivisto v. Davis | 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich.App., 2008) | 2008 WL 81559 (Mich.App.), 277 Mich.App. 492 (2008) |
Defendants, the Macaks, owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels. Plaintiff was outside on her deck when the dogs entered her property and attacked her cats, one of which died later from its injuries. The plaintiff rushed to defend the cats and suffered multiple bites from the dogs. The trial court held that the plaintiff had “provoked” the dogs. The Court of Appeals reversed. “The dogs were already provoked and, in fact, were in a state of attack, for whatever reason when plaintiff responded to their behaviors while on her own property.” |
Case | ||||||
| ME - Ferret - Chapter 730-A. Breeding, Sale and Transportation of Small Mammals | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3970-A to 3970-B | ME ST T. 7 § 3970-A to 3970-B | This chapter concerns the sale and importation of juvenile ferrets. | Statute | ||||||
| US - Cattle - Milk Income Loss Contract Program | 7 U.S.C.A. § 7981 - 7984 | Federal program that compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a specified level. | Statute | |||||||
| People v. Jornov | 65 A.D.3d 363, 881 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2009) | 2009 WL 1887134 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 05430 |
This New York case stems from an attack on Philip Mueller and his dog by Defendant-Appellant Jornov's "two pit bull-terrier mixed breed dogs.” During proceedings in City Court, the court determined that defendant's dogs were dangerous dogs and directed that they be euthanized. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the finding that the dogs were dangerous under Agriculture and Markets Law § 121 and Agriculture and Markets Law § 350[5] because there was clear and convincing evidence that the dogs attacked a companion animal and behaved in a manner that a reasonable person would believe posed a serious and imminent threat of serious physical injury or death. However, under the amended version of the statute, a judge or justice may not automatically direct humane euthanasia or permanent confinement of a dangerous dog where none of the aggravating circumstances are present. |
Case | ||||||
| Howle v. Aqua Illinois, Inc. | 2012 IL App (4th) 120207 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.) | 2012 IL App (4th) 120207 | As the result of a dog bite on the defendant’s rental property, the plaintiff suffered a torn cheek and irreparable damage to her ear. The plaintiff therefore attempted to recover damages from the defendant on the common law theory of negligence and through Illinois’ Animal Control Act. The trial court, however, dismissed the Animal Control Act claim and, later, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, though it stated a motion for summary judgment was more appropriate then the motion to dismiss for the Animal Control Act claim. | Case | ||||||
| Murga v. Yarusso | 215 A.D.3d 979, 187 N.Y.S.3d 762 (2023) | No. 2021-00173, 605534/18, 187 N.Y.S.3d 762, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02130, 2023 WL 3083108 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Apr. 26, 2023) | This New York case involved action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained after defendant's dog allegedly ran into street and pushed the plaintiff pedestrian to the ground. The plaintiff described the dog as acting like a "big puppy" and the dog did not bite the plaintiff. In contrast, the defendant testified that the dog was chasing a ball in the defendant's front yard and did not actually go in the street. Rather, defendant asserts that plaintiff tripped upon seeing the dog in the yard. The complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep the dog under control and to take protective measures knowing of the aggressive propensity of the dog. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the defendant-owner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff also suggested that defendant might be liable for throwing the ball which caused the dog to run in the street and knock the plaintiff down. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the plaintiff cannot recover under such a theory, as New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for an owner's alleged negligence in the handling of a dog. The summary judgment was affirmed as the court found the owner was not liable to pedestrian for injuries sustained. | Case | ||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 7 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| IN - Endangered Species - Chapter 34. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation | I.C. 14-22-34-1 to 21 | IN ST 14-22-34-1 to 21 | These Indiana statutes set out the definitions related to endangered species and prohibit any form of possession of listed species, including taking, transporting, purchasing or selling except by permit. Listed species may be removed, captured, or destroyed if it is shown by good cause that the species are causing property damage or are a danger to human health. | Statute | ||||||
| CO - Hunting - Willful Destruction of Wildlife | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-117 | CO ST § 33-6-117 | Colorado has a unique statute specific to poaching for the purpose of acquiring parts or "trophies" from an animal with the intent of abandoning the carcass, or even soliciting someone else to do so. Taking or hunting big game, eagles, or endangered species with this intent results in a felony. The intent of the law is stated "to protect the wildlife from wanton, ruthless, or wasteful destruction or mutilation for their heads, hides, claws, teeth, antlers, horns, internal organs, or feathers." | Statute |