Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DE - Domestic Violence - § 1045. Relief available; duration of orders, modification and termination | 10 Del.C. § 1045 | DE ST TI 10 § 1045 | Delaware amended its law on protection orders in domestic violence situations to include protection of pets in 2023. Per subsection (a)(12), a court may "[g]rant the petitioner the exclusive care, custody, or control of any companion animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or a minor child residing in the residence or household of the petitioner or respondent and order the respondent to stay away from the companion animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, harming, or otherwise disposing of the companion animal." | Statute |
| Sample Post |
Sample Post of Dog Map
|
Policy | ||
| State v. Smith | 223 P.3d 1262 (Wash.App. Div. 2, 2009) | 2009 WL 5108382 (Wash.App. Div. 2) |
In this Washington case, defendant Smith appealed his conviction for first degree animal cruelty following the death of his llama. Smith claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to (1) discover information before trial that may have explained the llama's death and (2) seek a lesser included instruction on second degree animal cruelty. This court agreed. It found that defense counsel's "all or nothing strategy" was not a legitimate trial tactic and constituted deficient performance where counsel presented evidence to call into question the State's theory on starvation, but not evidence related to the entire crime. The court found that the jury was "left in an arduous position: to either convict Smith of first degree animal cruelty or to let him go free despite evidence of some culpable behavior." The case was reversed and remanded. |
Case |
| People v. Tohom | 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2013) | 109 A.D.3d 253; 2013 WL 3455673 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.); 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05234 |
This case, as a matter of first impression, considers whether a trial court was authorized to allow a "therapeutic comfort dog" to be present on witness stand for a 15-year-old-girl who was the victim in a predatory sexual assault and child endangerment case. Prosecutors sought to allow a Golden Retriever named Rose to accompany the child on the witness stand while she testified at the defendant’s trial. Prosecutors cited Criminal Procedure Law provisions regarding special witnesses and pointed to Executive Law §642-a, which allows a person supportive of a special witness to be “present and accessible” during testimony by such a witness. On appeal, defendant again argued that the dog would prejudice the jury against the defendant and would convey to the jury that the witness was under stress as a result of testifying and that this stress resulted from telling the truth. In finding that the comfort dog did not violate defendant's right to a fair trial, the appellate court agreed that the trial court's interpretation of Executive Law § 642-a "special witness" provision was correct. Further, the defendant failed to show that the dog Rose's presence was inherently prejudicial. |
Case |
| Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. Whitetail Bluff, LLC | 25 N.E.3d 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 416786 (Ind. Ct. App., 2015) | Appellee established a business that allowed for "high fence" hunting, which refers to hunting wild animals on property that is enclosed by a fence, of privately-owned whitetail deer. The pivotal question in this appeals case was whether the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) was correct in asserting that the current statutory scheme prohibited this practice, and therefore allowed the agency to promulgate rules effectuating that prohibition. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that IDNR did not have the power to regulate fish and wildlife that were legally owned or held in captivity under a license. The IDNR therefore went beyond its express powers conferred upon it by the General Assembly when it promulgated rules that prohibited "high fence" hunting. The lower court's grant of summary judgment to the appellee was affirmed. | Case |
| MO - Initiatives - Proposition B (dog breeders) | Proposition B (2010) |
This 2010 ballot measure asked whether Missouri law shall be amended to: 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; prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and create a misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty” for any violations. It was passed in 2010 by 51.6% of voters. |
Statute | |
| NC - Dangerous Dogs - Chapter 67. Dogs | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-14.1 | NC ST § 67-14.1 | This North Carolina statute provides that any dog which trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear on any wildlife refuge, sanctuary or management area designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, during the closed season for hunting with dogs on such refuge or management area, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and any wildlife protector may destroy it by humane method. Any unmuzzled dog running at large in such area shall be impounded and notice shall be published in some newspaper published in the county for two successive weeks. If no owner comes to claim the dog, it may be destroyed within 15 days after publication. | Statute |
| Reicksview Farms, L.L.C. v. Kiehne | 541 F. Supp. 3d 935 (N.D. Iowa 2021) | This case is brought by a farm in the business of raising and breeding pigs. Plaintiff brought suit against a veterinarian and veterinary clinic for several claims, including malpractice. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to oversee and perform testing for Mhp, leading plaintiff to unknowingly transfer infected pigs to other farms resulting in monetary damages. Defendants moved for summary judgment and were denied, with the court holding that the two year statute of limitations for veterinary malpractice claims does not apply, and the five year statute of limitations for unwritten contract applies. | Case | |
| OR - Police Animal - 682.410. Emergency transportation for treatment of police dogs injured in the line of duty | O.R.S. § 682.410 | OR ST § 682.410 | Under this Oregon law from 2021, an emergency medical services provider may provide emergency transportation for treatment to a police dog that is injured in the line of duty, provided that such transportation for treatment does not delay or otherwise interfere with the emergency transportation for treatment of any human. | Statute |
| In re Capers' Estate | 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 121 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) | 15 Fiduc.Rep. 150, 1963 WL 6573 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) |
In this Pennsylvania case, the testatrix directed in her will that her Irish setter dogs to be destroyed in a humane manner. The executors were unsure of what action to take and sought declaratory relief. In attempting to construe the testatrix's intent, the court found that she "evidently feared that either they would grieve for her or that no one would afford them the same affection and kindness that they received during her life." The court found that the intent of testatrix would be carried out if her two favored Irish setters were placed in an environment where they are given the same care and attention that she she gave them during her life. The final question the court grappled with was whether it was against public policy to hold valid a clause in a will directing the summary destruction of certain of decedent's property after her death. The court held that the clause was void as not being within the purview of the Wills Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and being against the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. |
Case |
