Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applbaum v. Golden Acres Farm and Ranch | 333 F. Supp. 2d 31 (N.D. N.Y. 2004) |
Minor child fell off of a horse while horseback riding at a resort ranch and sustained severe injuries. Parents of the minor child brought a personal injury claim against the stable and the stable moved for summary judgment. The trial court precluded summary judgment due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact relating the parent's assumption of the risk. |
Case | ||
| GA - Liens, veterinary - Article 8. Liens. Part 9. Veterinarians and Boarders of Animals. | Ga. Code Ann., § 44-14-490 to 494 | GA ST § 44-14-490 to 494 | This section of Georgia laws deals with veterinary liens. Every licensed veterinarian in Georgia has a lien on each animal or pet treated, boarded, or cared for by him or her while in his or her custody and under contract with the owner of the animal or pet for the payment of charges for the treatment, board, or care of the animal or pet. The veterinarian has the right to retain the animal or pet until the charges are paid. There is a ten-day hold period after demand for payment (made in person or by registered or certified mail) until the pet is deemed abandoned and may be disposed of by the veterinary facility. | Statute | |
| OK - Commercial Breeder Act Regulations - Chapter 55. Commercial Pet Breeders | OK ADC 35:55-1-1 to 35:55-7-6 | Okla. Admin. Code 35:55-1-1 to 35:55-7-6 | Pursuant to the authority granted in the Oklahoma Commercial Breeders Act, these Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry regulations out line the licensing procedures, the standards of care, the transportation, and the record keeping provisions Oklahoma commercial breeders must follow. | Administrative | |
| Fisher v. Liptak | 1996CarswellAlta33 |
Two pet llamas owned by the plaintiff Fisher were attacked on two separate occasions by dogs, including by a dog owned by the defendant Liptak, causing the death of one llama and, two weeks later, injury to the second llama. After the first attack, Liptak's dog returned covered with saliva and blood, although it had no bleeding wounds; he suspected the dog had been in a fight or attack but did not investigate. His dog was later discovered injuring the second llama. The court ruled that Liptak's finding indications of the first attack put him on notice that the dog had a 'vicious or mischievous propensity to attack other animals,' sufficient to make him strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter, for the second llama's injuries, but not for the first, for which Liptak lacked the requisite knowledge. Similarly, Liptak was not liable in negligence in the first attack, since in that rural area all the local owners let their dogs run at large and Liptak had no prior reason to suspect his dog would attack; the judge did not discuss whether Liptak was liable in negligence for the second attack. |
Case | ||
| WA - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's RCWA 9.91.170 - 175; 28A.642.010; 49.60.010 - 040, 215, 218, 222; 224; 225; 49.60.370 - 380; 49.90.010; 70.84.010 - 900 | WA ST 9.91.170 - 175; 28A.642.010; 49.60.010 - 040, 215, 218, 222, 224, 225; 49.60.370 - 380; 49.90.010; 0.84.010 - 900 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| OR - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | O. R. S. § 167.305 - 439 | OR ST § 167.305 - 439 | These Oregon statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty laws. "Animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. The term "assault," which is generally associated with human crimes, is used to define certain crimes against animals. Animal abuse may be elevated to a felony offense if the act was committed directly in front of a minor child or if the perpetrator was previously convicted of domestic violence. | Statute | |
| MO - Veterinary - Chapter 340. Veterinarians. | V. A. M. S. 340.010 - 405 | MO ST 340.010 - 350 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| DE - Assistance Animal - Delaware's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 2 Del.C. § 1917; 16 Del.C. § 3042F; 16 Del.C. § 3056F; 16 Del.C. § 9501 - 9506; 21 Del.C. § 4144; 6 Del.C. § 4501 - 4516; 31 Del.C. § 2117 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | ||
| Kennedy House, Inc. v. Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations | 143 A.3d 476 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 11, 2016) | 2016 WL 3667992 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 11, 2016) |
In this case, Kennedy House appealed the lower court’s decision in finding that it had violated Section 9–1108 of the Philadelphia Fair Practice Ordinance when it denied Jan Rubin’s request for a housing accommodation in the form of a waiver of its no-dog policy. Rubin applied for a housing accommodation at Kennedy House because she suffered from multiple physical aliments. In a meeting with Kennedy House, Rubin did state that her dog was not a trained service animal that helped with her physical and mobility issues but rather helped with reminding her to take medication and getting out of bed. The lower court determined that Rubin had satisfied her burden of proving that her dog was necessary in helping with her medical issues. After reviewing the lower court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that the lower court had erred in its decisions. Ultimately, the court found that because Ms. Rubin's physician described a disability related to her mobility, and there was no evidence establishing a nexus between her mobility-related needs and the requested assistance animal, Ms. Rubin did not meet her burden necessary for Kennedy House to waive its no-dog policy. As a result, the court reversed the lower court’s decision. |
Case | |
| NM - Hunting - § 17-3-49. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited; penalties | NMSA 1978, § 17-3-49 | NM ST § 17-3-49 | This law makes it illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting, provide facilities for that purpose, create or advertise such software or websites, or keep an animal confined for computer-assisted remote hunting. Violation also leads to a revocation of licenses issued by the state game commission. | Statute |