Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marine Mammals Issues | Policy | |||
| CA - Crimes - § 597. Cruelty to animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597 | CA PENAL § 597 | This statutes states that anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. The statute also defines specific forms of torture and mistreatment that qualifies as a crime under this section. | Statute |
| Canada - British Columbia - Division 1 -- Regulation of Animals | R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, s. 702.1 - 707.1(10) |
This set of British Columbia, Canada laws addresses animal control. The provisions give the animal control board the authority to regulate loose animals and licensing of dogs. |
Statute | |
| Mercado v. Ovalle | 973 N.Y.S.2d 171 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2013) | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06810, 2013 WL 5712557, 110 A.D.3d 539 |
In this New York case, plaintiff appealed the lower court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a dog bite case. Defendants, a grocery store and its owner, asserted that they did not own the two pit bulls that attacked plaintiff. The only evidence plaintiff presented showing defendants' ownership and control over the dogs were hearsay statements from the mechanic who operated the lot that the dogs guarded. The court found this evidence that defendants occasionally walked and fed the dogs insufficient to show that they "harbored" the dogs. Affirmed. |
Case |
| CO - Commerce City - Breed - Chapter 4 - ANIMAL CODE. ARTICLE I. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. | COMMERCE CITY, CO., REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 4-1000 - 4-1005 (2011) |
Commerce City defines a pit bull or pit bull terrier as any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.) or United Kennel Club (U.K.C.) for any of the above breeds. Commerce City has banned pit bulls with the exception of pit bulls who were in the city prior to November 2005. |
Local Ordinance | |
| The Legal Guardianship of Animals |
|
Policy | ||
| Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport | Amendments to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport. The amendments are mainly procedural rather than substantive. | Treaty | ||
| AL - Public Nuisances - Chapter 10. Nuisances Menacing Public Health | Ala. Code 1975 § 22-10-1 to 3 | AL ST § 22-10-1 to 3 | This set of laws lists various animal-related actions and conditions that are considered nuisances per se because of their significant public health risks. In addition, it addresses the methods by which such nuisances may be abated, up to and including the destruction of property without compensation. | Statute |
| Animal Law Review Vol 12 Table of Contents |
|
Policy | ||
| Xu v. Chen | 2008 CarswellBC 1693 | 2008 BCPC 234 |
The Claimant's six-month old sheltie puppy, "Diamond,” suffered a serious limb injury outside the front yard of the family home. Claimant seeks to recover the veterinarian costs she incurred to treat the dog's injury against Defendants, the owners of the other dog that allegedly attacked claimant’s dog. The court found that there was evidence that Defendant was previously contacted by Animal Control as well as a neighbor about an incident where Angus lunged at another dog. The Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that Angus had manifested a propensity to cause the type of harm occasioned that night. Claimant was 25% liable for the incident where she left Diamond in an unfenced yard that gave other dogs access. The court denied Xu’s claim of $5500 for future medical costs for the care of Diamond because there was no evidence what these would be and the dog was currently living with another family. |
Case |
