Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francis v. City of Indianapolis | 958 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011, table, unpublished) | 2011 WL 5877241, 2011 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1605 | A dog rescue organization was cited with a violation of the city code for having a dog at large. One rescue dog escaped and lunged at a neighbor. Francis argued that the trial court erred in applying strict liability, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and challenged the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance. The trial court also found that a violation of the ordinance also imposed restrictions on Francis; she could no longer operate the animal rescue shelter and could only own or keep two dogs. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. | Case |
| McDonald v. State | 64 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. App. 2001) |
The act of finding a sick puppy and intentionally abandoning it in a remote area, without food or water or anyone else around to accept responsibility for the animal, was unreasonable and sufficient to support a conviction for animal cruelty. |
Case | |
| VT - Equine - § 1039. Equine activities; acceptance of inherent risks | 12 V.S.A. § 1039 | VT ST T. 12 § 1039 | This statute represents Vermont's equine activity liability law. Under the Act, no person shall be liable for an injury to, or the death of, a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities, insofar as those risks are necessary to the equine activity and obvious to the person injured. An equine activity sponsor may (it does not say "shall") post and maintain signs which contain the warning notice specified in this subsection. | Statute |
| China - Wildlife - Wildlife Law Regulations | Wildlife Law Regs. |
This is the set of regulations for the implementation of the national wildlife law, primarily for the protection of endangered species. |
Statute | |
| Garcia v. Village of Tijeras | 767 P.2d 355 (1988) | 108 N.M. 116, 57 USLW 2507 (1988) |
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance of the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico banning the ownership or possession of a breed of dog “known as American Pit Bull Terrier.” The District Court of Bernalillo County upheld the ordinance and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs had notice that the ordinance proscribes the conduct in which they were engaged; thus, it was not void for vagueness. With regard to the argument that the ordinance violated substantive due process, the court found that ordinance was rationally related to legitimate village purpose of protecting the health and safety of the community. Finally, the court found that the ordinance did not violate procedural due process where the ordinance provides that a hearing is held after impoundment to determine whether the dog is a pit bull. |
Case |
| OK - Newcastle - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter: 90: Animals) | Newcastle City Code §§ 90.04, 90.99 |
This Newcastle, Oklahoma ordinance declares it to be unlawful and an offense for any person to keep any animal within the corporate limits of the city except as provided by these provisions. A violation of this ordinance will result in a fine not to exceed $200. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Hayes v. Adams | 987 N.E.2d 402 (Ill.App. 2 Dist.,2013) | 2013 IL App (2d) 120681 (2013) |
An 8-year-old girl suffered injuries as a result of being bitten by a dog that escaped from a veterinarian clinic. The girl sued the clinic and the owner of the dog, but the owner was granted a motion for summary judgment because she did not have care or dominion over the animal at the time of the injury; this decision was then appealed. The Second District Appellate Court of Illinois held the Animal Control Act (510 ILCS 5/16) did not impose strict liability on a dog owner solely because he or she was the legal owner of a dog. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed because there was no reasonable or factual basis to impose liability. |
Case |
| Mann v. Regan | 948 A.2d 1075 (Conn.App.2008) | 108 Conn.App. 566, 2008 WL 2446592 (Conn.App.) |
The plaintiff (Mann) brought this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained to her face when she was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant (Regan). The incident occurred when the defendant’s dog was being cared for by the plaintiff at her house while the defendant traveled out of state. With regard to defendant's tacit admission challenge, this court found that defendant’s silence in response to her daughter’s statement, “Well, mom, you know he bit you,” was within the trial court’s discretion to admit as a hearsay exception. As to the jury instructions, this court was not persuaded that there is a meaningful distinction between the words “vicious” and “dangerous” as used in the context of an action stemming from a dog bite. |
Case |
| IL - Cruelty, reporting - 5/11.8. Cross-reporting | 325 I.L.C.S. 5/11.8 | IL ST CH 325 § 5/11.8 | This Illinois law states that Investigation Specialists, Intact Family Specialists, and Placement Specialists employed by the Department of Children and Family Services who reasonably believe that an animal observed by them when in their professional or official capacity is being abused or neglected in violation of the Humane Care for Animals Act must immediately make a written or oral report to the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Animal Health and Welfare. | Statute |
| State v. Goodall | 175 P. 857 (Or. 1918) | 90 Or. 485 (Or. 1918) |
This case involved an appeal from this conviction. The trial court found that the defendant rode the animal while it had a deep ulcerated cut on its back, and supplied it with insufficient food. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. |
Case |