Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Murphy | 10 A.3d 697 (Me.,2010) | 2010 ME 140; 2010 WL 5353130 (Me.) |
Defendant appeals her convictions for assault of an officer, refusing to submit to arrest, criminal use of an electronic weapon, and two counts of cruelty to animals. In October 2009, a state police trooper was dispatched to defendant's home to investigate complaints that she was keeping animals despite a lifetime ban imposed after her 2004 animal cruelty conviction. The appellate found each of her five claims frivolous, and instead directed its inquiry as to whether the trial court correctly refused recusal at defendant's request. This court found that the trial court acted with "commendable restraint and responsible concern for Murphy's fundamental rights," especially in light of defendant's outbursts and provocations. |
Case | |
| NM - Exotic Pets - 19.35.7. Importation of Live Nondomestic Animals Birds and Fish | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.7.1 - 23 | NM ADC 19.35.7.1 - 23 | This regulation covers persons who desire to bring wildlife species into the state of New Mexico. It may include the general public, pet importers, holders of Class A park licenses, department permitees and others. The stated objective is, "[t]o provide consistent criteria for the importation of live non-domesticated animals into New Mexico and to protect native wildlife against the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases, undesirable species and address human health and safety issues." | Administrative | |
| MD - Vehicle - § 20-106. Duty of driver upon striking domestic animal with vehicle | MD Code, Transportation, § 20-106 | MD TRANS § 20-106 | Under this Maryland statute, if a motor vehicle strikes and injures a domestic animal, the driver of the motor vehicle immediately shall notify the appropriate State or local police of the accident. Once notified, the police shall notify the local organization or governmental agency designated by the appropriate local government to give the injured animals medical care. | Statute | |
| Connecticut v. Devon D. | 321 Conn. 656, 138 A.3d 849 (2016) | 321 Conn. 656 (2016), 2016 WL 3194779 (Conn.,2016) | Devon D. was convicted of four counts sexual assault and three counts of risk of injury to a child upon allegations made by three of Devon D.’s biological children, C1, C2, and C3. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court had abused its discretion by having the three cases to be tried jointly and by permitting C1 to testify with a dog at her feet. The appellate court had accepted these arguments and reversed and remanded for a new trial, but the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the appellate court. The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that “the trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the cases to be tried together because the evidence in all three cases was cross admissible,” and reversed on that issue. As to the appellate court’s determination that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting a dog to sit near C1 during her testimony to provide comfort and support,” the Supreme Court also reversed, reinstating the verdict and judgment of the trial court. | Case | |
| NM - Dangerous Animal - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | NMSA 1978, § 77-1-10 | NM ST § 77-1-10 | This New Mexico statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to keep any animal known to be vicious and liable to attack or injure human beings unless such animal is securely kept to prevent injury to any person. It is also unlawful to keep any unvaccinated dog or cat or any animal with any symptom of rabies or to fail or to refuse to destroy vicious animals or unvaccinated dogs or cats with symptoms of rabies. | Statute | |
| MD - Hunting - Title 10. Wildlife. | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-422 | MD NAT RES § 10-422 | This law reflects Maryland's hunter harassment provision. While on private land that is owned by another person or in a hunting area on land managed by the Department, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or harass, drive, or disturb any game animal intentionally for the purpose of disrupting a lawful hunt. A Natural Resources officer or other police officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has violated the section may order the person to leave the area or arrest that person if he or she refuses to leave. | Statute | |
| Tilson v. Russo | 30 A.D.3d 856 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2006), | 2006 WL 1703632 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 818 N.Y.S.2d 311 |
In this New York case, plaintiff, an experienced recreational horse rider, was bitten by a horse she intended to use to practice her techniques at defendant's stable. The rider then brought a negligence action against owners of horse that bit her on the shoulder. In affirming the lower court's granting of summary judgment, the appellate court found that rider's injury occurred in the context of her participation in the recreational sporting activity of horseback riding, for purposes of primary assumption of the risk principles. She was aware of the inherent risks in sporting events involving horses, had an appreciation of the nature of the risks, and voluntarily assumed those risks. |
Case | |
| Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels | 555 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa, 1996) | 61 A.L.R.5th 883 (1996) |
During a stay at defendant kennel, the kennel owner's dog tore off plaintiff's dog's left front leg and shoulder blade. Plaintiff's petition sought damages to compensate for the injuries and suffering the dog incurred and the loss of aesthetic intrinsic value of the dog. In upholding the district court's denial of damages for emotional injury and mental suffering, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument for damages based on the intrinsic value of a pet for the negligent injury to the dog. |
Case | |
| American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign v. Vilsack | 133 F. Supp. 3d 200 (D.D.C. 2015) | 2015 WL 5726880 (D.D.C., 2015) | The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (Plaintiffs) brought this action against the United States Forest Service (Forest Service) to prevent the implementation of the new Devil’s Garden Wild Horse Territory Plan (WHT) that Modoc County helped develop. Plaintiffs brought six claims against defendants, all under the Administrative Procedures Act. In Counts I, II, and III, plaintiffs alleged that the boundary clarification was arbitrary and capricious because it violated the Wild Horses Act, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in Counts IV, V, and VI, they claimed that the adjustment to the "appropriate management level" (AML) range was arbitrary and capricious because it was contrary to the same three statutes. Because the Forest Service reasonably concluded that the disputed territory was never formally incorporated into the Devil's Garden WHT, and that any references to one contiguous territory were the result of administrative error, the Court found that it was not arbitrary and capricious or in violation of the law for the Forest Service to act to correct the boundary in the 2013 Environmental Assessment and the 2013 Management Plan. Thus, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Counts I, II, and III. And because the Forest Service articulated a rational basis for its decision to adjust the AML range for the Devil's Garden WHT that was not counter to record evidence or otherwise contrary to the law, the Court found that defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on Counts IV, V, and VI. Thus, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied, defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and because they sought the same relief as defendants, the intervenor-defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was denied as moot. | Case | |
| MT - Bite - Chapter 1. Availability of Remedies--Liability. | MCA 27-1-715 | MT ST 27-1-715 | This Montana statute provides that the owner of any dog which shall without provocation bite any person while such person is on or in a public place or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of such dog, located within an incorporated city or town shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute |