Results
Displaying 6171 - 6180 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elliot v. Hurst | 817 S.W.2d 877 (Ark., 1991) | 307 Ark. 134 (1991) |
This tort case involves appellee's suit against appellant for appellant's conversion of appellee's wolf hybrid dog named Rambo. The appellee in this case had placed an ad stating that he had a certain breed of dogs for sale. When appellant went to see the dogs, she noticed a serious leg infection. After consulting with the local prosecutor’s office and an animal organization, she returned to the owner’s home to take the dog in for treatment. The consulting veterinarian determined that the leg had to be amputated. The court held that the recovery was limited to the market value at the time prior to the amputation. |
Case |
| TN - Cruelty, reporting - Part 4. Cross Reporting of Animal Cruelty | T. C. A. § 38-1-401 - 403 | Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-1-402 - 403 | This Tennessee statute requires employees of child or adult protective service agencies to report animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect that they know or reasonably suspect to have occurred in their county. The statute also describes the amount of time that an employee may have to make a report and ensures the confidentiality of the employee. The statute also makes clear that it does not impose a duty on the employee to investigate known or reasonably suspected animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect. | Statute |
| Carroll v. Cnty. of Monroe | 712 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2013) | The Plaintiff-Appellant appeals a decision/order by the lower court to deny her motion to set aside the jury verdict or grant a new trial. At the original trial, a jury found plaintiff failed to prove her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the shooting of her dog during the execution of a search warrant was an unconstitutional seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff's dog was shot during a "no-knock" search warrant at plaintiff's residence, but the warrant team was aware that a dog would be present during the search. On appeal, this court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial because she failed to provide any “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to show that the jury would find in her favor. The court believed that it was unlikely that a jury would find in her favor because of the fact that the dog was killed during a “no-knock” search of the home and the dog “quickly and aggressively” ran towards the police officer after he entered the home. Although the court agreed that the officers should have advised a plan to deal with the dog in a non-lethal way, it maintained that a jury would unlikely find that the officer’s use of force was unreasonable given the circumstances of this case. Affirmed. | Case | |
| MN - Ordinances - 366.01.Chapter 366. Town Board; Board of Audit. Town Board. | M. S. A. § 366.01 | MN ST § 366.01 | This Minnesota statute provides that the supervisors of each town constituting a town board are empowered to license and regulate the presence or keeping of dogs or domestic animal pets when deemed to be in the public interest. | Statute |
| IA - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | I. C. A. § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B, 216.8C; 321.333 | IA ST § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B; 216.8C; 321.333 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service and assistance animal laws. | Statute |
| In re: JOHN D. DAVENPORT, d/b/a KING ROYAL CIRCUS. | 57 Agric. Dec. 189 (U.S.D.A. May 18, 1998) | 1998 WL 300096 | Since 7 USCS § 2140 requires that exhibitors make their records identifying animals available for inspection at all reasonable times, it is not unreasonable to expect that records be with animals as they are transported | Case |
| MA - Leash - § 174B. Restraint of dogs in public highway rest areas; penalty | M.G.L.A. 140 § 174B | MA ST 140 § 174B | This Massachusetts law states that whoever is the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain said dog by a chain or leash when in an officially designated public highway rest area. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100. | Statute |
| US - Exotic Birds - Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act | 16 USC 4901 - 4916 | The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act addresses the population threat to non-indigenous wild birds due to the demand the from U.S. as the number one importer of exotic birds (e.g., the "pet" bird trade). Exceptions under the statute include qualified breeding facilities, scientific or zoological study, and people returning the U.S. who have been out of the country for more than a year (limited to two birds). | Statute | |
| FL - Impound - Abandonment of animals by owner; procedure for handling | West's F. S. A. § 705.19 | FL ST § 705.19 | This Florida statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian or bona fide boarding kennel that is abandoned by its owner or for a period of more than 10 days after written notice is given to the owner may be turned over to the custody of the nearest humane society or dog pound in the area for disposal as such custodian may deem proper. This provisions immunizes such facilities from liability resulting from this action. | Statute |
| Ducote v. Boleware | 216 So. 3d 934 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), writ denied, 2016-0636 (La. 5/20/16), 191 So. 3d 1071 | 2016 WL 659022 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), | This appeal arises from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Ducote, stemming from injuries she suffered as the result of a bite by defendant's cat. Plaintiff was walking down the sidewalk in New Orleans in the early evening when defendant's cat jumped on her left side and bit her hand causing injury. Plaintiff opted for the rabies immunoglobulin and the vaccine at the emergency room after defendant was unable to produce a rabies certificate (though the cat was later successfully quarantined). The trial court granted summary judgment upon motion for defendant and his homeowner's insurer. Plaintiff now appeals that decision. On appeal, the majority observed that liability of an animal owner (other than a dog) is provided by La. C.C. art. 2321, which gives a negligence standard based on knowledge of an animal's vicious propensities. The court found that there was no scienter on defendant's part as to the cat's dangerous nature (in fact, the cat was known to be a friendly cat with no previous incidents). Plaintiff suggests that liability should be based on a theory of negligence per se. Due to defendant's violation of city ordinances related to proof of rabies vaccination, he should be liable for damages. The court, however, rejected this, as Louisiana law does not recognize statutory negligence per se. Instead, in looking at negligence based on the set of facts, the court found plaintiff did not meet her burden. The trial court's decision was affirmed. | Case |