Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OK - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | 11 Okl.St.Ann. § 22-115.1; 21 Okl.St.Ann. § 649.1 - 649.3; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 1717 - 1718; 4 Okl.St.Ann. § 41 - 47; 391 - 402; 499 - 499.10; 501 - 602; 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 7-304; 70 Okl.St.Ann. § 5-117.6 | These statutes comprise Oklahoma's dog laws. Among the provisions include dog control laws, sterilization provisions for adopted animals, and the use of unclaimed animals in scientific research or experimentation. | Statute | |
| Rogers v. State | 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988). |
Dog fighting case. Where the dog fighting area was in an open section of woods near the defendant's home, police officers were not required to obtain a search warrant before entering the defendant's property because of the "open fields" doctrine. |
Case | |
| MO - Breeding - Proposition B | 2010 Proposition B |
The official ballot title asks voters if Missouri law be amended to (1) require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles; (2) prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and (3) create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations. |
Statute | |
| Armstrong v. Riggi | 549 P.2d 753 (Nev. 1976) | 92 Nev. 280 (1976) |
Joe Riggi delivered his two unregistered Pomeranian dogs to the Armstrongs' Poodle Parlor to be bathed and groomed. The dogs died while in the care of the bailee. Riggi commenced this action to recover damages alleging that the dogs were worth more than $10,000. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court incorrectly interpreted the state court rule regarding attorney fees. Since the appellate court did in fact determine error, the case was remanded. |
Case |
| Davison v. Berg | 243 So.3d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2018) | 44 Fla. L. Weekly D641 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2018); 2018 WL 1415485 | Deborah Davison volunteered at her local Humane Society to help take care of a dog park. Three years later, Rebecca Berg’s dog who was chasing other dogs collided with Davison. Davison suffered a broken leg that required extensive medical care. Davison then filed an action against Berg under a Florida statute that “imposes liability on dog owners for damage their dogs cause to other persons and animals.” The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Berg for two reasons. The first reason was that the signs outside of the park sufficiently warned Davison of the risks of injury inside. The second reason was that Davison essentially consented to the risk of potential injuries by being a volunteer for the dog park. On appeal, this court stated that the Florida statute was a strict liability statute that makes an owner the insurer of their dog’s conduct. The only defense to the statute is for an owner to display in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign that includes the words “Bad Dog.” Berg presented evidence that the park had two signs prominently displayed at the entrance to the park with the title “Dog Park Rules.” The two signs listed rules for entrance to the dog park. One of these rules stated that park use is at the dog owner’s risk. Another rule stated that rough play and chasing were not allowed if any dogs or owners were uncomfortable with that behavior. The last rule stated that visitors enter at their own risk. Even though Davison entered the park at her own risk, the purpose of the sign requirement in the statute was to give notice that a bad dog is on the premises. The Court found that the trial court erred in finding that the signs at the dog park were sufficiently equivalent to “Bad Dog” signs to preclude liability under the Florida statute. The trial court also found that by virtue of Davison volunteering at the dog park, she was aware that she could be injured during the course of her work and that she signed a volunteer application form that acknowledged that she could be exposed to “bites, scratches, and other injuries.” Davison had also witnessed a prior collision between a dog and an individual that resulted in a broken leg. After witnessing that, Davison began to warn others at the Humane Society about the dangers of being inside the dog park with dogs chasing each other. The Court held that even though there may be evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Davison consented to the risk of injury, “an actual consent or assumption of the risk defense cannot bar liability.” The Court reversed the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of Berg. | Case |
| NJ - Fur - Chapter 14. Fur Products. | NJSA 56:14-1 to 56:14-3 | NJ ST 56:14-1 to 56:14-3 | This law represents New Jersey's fur labeling law. Under the 2009 law, no person shall sell or offer to sell any new coat, jacket, garment or other clothing apparel made wholly or in part of fur, regardless of the price or value of the fur, without the name of the animal(s) used to produce the fur and the name of the country of origin of any imported fur. A person who violates this act shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $500 for the first offense and not more than $1,000 for each subsequent offense, to be collected in a civil action by a summary proceeding. | Statute |
| Siegert v. Crook County | 266 P.3d 170 (Or.App., 2011) | 2011 WL 5402078 (Or.App.); 246 Or.App. 500 (2011) |
An individual appealed County Court’s decision to approve the location of a dog breeding kennel in a zone where such kennels were not permitted. The county interpreted the code that was in effect at the time the kennel began operating to allow dog breeding as animal husbandry, and thus permissible farm use. The Court of Appeals found the county's interpretation to be plausible. |
Case |
| MD - Hunting - Subtitle 9. Captive Wildlife. | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-901 - 911 | MD NAT RES § 10-901 - 911 | This Maryland statute states that it is in the state's public interest to preserve native species by strictly regulating the possession, importation, exportation, breeding, raising, protection, rehabilitation, hunting, killing, trapping, capture, purchase, or sale of certain wildlife which pose a possibility of harm to native wildlife. | Statute |
| People v. Cumper | 268 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. 1978) | 83 Mich. App. 490 (Mich. 1978) |
Defendant was convicted under MCL 750.49 for being a spectator at a dog fight. He argued on appeal that the statute was impermissibly vague and unconstitutionally overbroad, for punishing an individual for mere presence at a dog fight. The court disagreed, finding that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad because it did not punish the mere witnessing of a dog fight, but attendance as a spectator to a legally prohibited dog fight. For more, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case |
| Colombia, Resolución 002341, 2007 | Resolution 002341 de 2007 sets parameters and requirements with the goal of guaranteeing the efficiency of the different processes that are part of the system of production of cattle for slaughter, while taking into account the livestock’s health and safety. Some of the topics that this resolution regulates include registration of production farms, requirements of the farming facilities, animal health and biosafety, veterinary medicines good practices, animal feeding good practices, farm and livestock transportation personnel, animal welfare and animal transportation. | Administrative |