Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clyncke v. Waneka | 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007) | 2007 WL 570412 (Colo.) |
In this Colorado case, an inexperienced horse rider who was injured in fall from horse during a horse roundup, brought an action under the Colorado Equine Activities Statute against the owners of riding stable. The lower court, after a jury trial, entered a judgment for the stable owners. On appeal at the Supreme Court, the Court found that the Equine Statute places a two-pronged duty on sponsors; a sponsor is liable when he or she fails to make reasonable efforts to determine either a participant's ability to engage in the equine activity or a participant's ability to manage a particular horse. Here, a new trial was in order because the result may have been different if court had properly instructed the jury regarding the exception from civil liability for the sponsor. |
Case |
| Prior Cases of the Month 2010 to 2016 | This document contains cases of the month from 2010 - 2016. | Policy | ||
| Casebook Update |
Updated material for David Favre, Animal Law, 3rd edition (2019) |
Basic page | ||
| Mahan v. State | 51 P.3d 962, 963 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002) | 2002 Alas. App. LEXIS 148 | Mahan had over 130 animals on her property. Alaska Equine Rescue went to check on the condition of the animals at the request of her family members. The animals were in poor health and were removed by Alaska State Troopers and the Rescue. The animals were then placed in foster homes. The defendant's attorney requested a writ of assistance to require law enforcement to assist and force the foster families to answer a questionnaire. The appellate court held that the families were under no legal obligation to answer the questionnaire unless the court were to issue a deposition order and the families were to be properly subpoenaed. The district court's denial of the writ was upheld. Mahan's attorney also asked for a change of venue due to the publicity the case garnered. The court held the defendant was not entitled to a change of venue when 15 jurors had been excused and there was no reason to doubt the impartiality of the jurors who were left after the selection process. There was no indication that the jurors were unable to judge the case fairly. Mahan's attorney also filed a motion to suppress a majority of the evidence, claiming that the Rescue and law enforcement unlawfully entered the property. The judge stated he would rule on the motion if it was appropriate to do so. The judge never ruled on the motion. To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must obtain an adverse ruling, thus it constituted a waiver of the claim. Mahan was also prohibited from owning more than one animal. She offered no reason why this condition of probation was an abuse of the judge's discretion, therefore it was a waiver of this claim. Lastly, although the Rescue received donations from the public to help care for the animals, that did not entitle Mahan to an offset. Restitution is meant to make the victims whole again and also to make the defendant pay for the expense caused by their criminal conduct. | Case |
| VT - Lost dog - Article 2. Killing Unlicensed Dogs; Subchapter 5. Control of Rabies | 20 V.S.A. § 3621 - 3626; 20 V.S.A. § 3806 - 3809 | VT ST T. 20 § 3621 - 3626; VT ST T. 20 § 3806 - 3809 | These Vermont statute provide the law for seizure, confinement of, and destruction of dogs and domestic wolf-hybrids. It also includes a warrant form necessary for local authorities to seize and impound an offending dog or wolf-hybrid. | Statute |
| CR - Welfare - BIENESTAR DE LOS ANIMALES (Law 7451 on Animal Welfare) | Law 7451 |
(Text in Spanish). The law that regulates animal welfare in Costa Rica; its terms are based on the results of the OIE conference in Australia in 1994. |
Statute | |
| PA - Pittsburgh - CHAPTER 635: Other Animals And Fowl ( Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals) | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Code of Ordinances, Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals, Secs. 635.03 - 635.08 |
These Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ordinances prohibit any person from riding or driving any animal-drawn conveyance on any street or sidewalk within the city except by permit or by authorization from the Director of the Department of Public Works. Whoever violates this provision will be fined $100 for the first offense and $300 for any subsequent offenses. Additionally, these ordinances provide provisions related to rodeos and whoever violates these provisions will be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment of up to 30 days, or both. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Hopson v. Kreps | 622 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) |
Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action. |
Case | |
| CT - Facility - § 51-10d. Judicial Branch Internet web site. Notice and information re animal-assisted therapy | C.G.S.A. § 51-10d | CT ST § 51-10d | This Connecticut law enacted in 2017 states that the Judicial Branch shall maintain on its Internet web site (1) notice that the court may exercise its discretion to permit a dog to provide comfort and support to a testifying witness, (2) a hyperlink to the Internet web site of an organization that provides information regarding animal-assisted therapy resources, and (3) if applicable, a hyperlink to information regarding such resources on the Internet web site of the Division of Criminal Justice. | Statute |
| CO - Vehicle, animal - § 13-21-108.4. Persons rendering emergency assistance from a locked vehicle | C.R.S.A. § 13-21-108.4, C.R.S.A. § 18-1-706.5 | This Colorado law allows the rescue of animals and "at-risk persons" from locked vehicles under certain conditions. "Animal" defined as cat or dog and specifically excludes livestock. A person is immune from civil or criminal liability for property damage resulting from forcible entry into locked vehicle if all of the following occurs: (1) an animal is present and the person has a reasonable belief that the animal is in imminent danger of death or suffering serious bodily injury; (2) the person determines the vehicle is locked and forcible entry is necessary; (3) the person makes reasonable effort to locate the owner as outlined in the law; (4) the person contacts law enforcement/911/emergency responders prior to forcibly entering vehicle; and he or she remains with vehicle until law enforcement/responders arrive. | Statute |