Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terral v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. | 892 So.2d 732 (La.,2005) |
A motorcyclist hit a dog wandering on the road and sued the defendant under strict liability theory. The court found that the defendant was strictly liable because he owned the dog in fact. Although the dog was originally a stray, the court upheld a finding of ownership because the defendant regularly fed the dog and harbored it on his property. |
Case | |
| Robinson v. City of Bluefield | 764 S.E.2d 740 (W. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) | 234 W. Va. 209, 2014 WL 5032602 (W. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) | An Animal Control Officer responded to a complaint about two dogs at defendant's residence. While investigating the complaint at defendant's residence, the animal control officer was attacked by one of defendant's dogs. The officer sought medical treatment following the incident. The City of Bluefield subsequently brought charges against defendant in its municipal court, charging her with having a dangerous animal in violation of city ordinances. The municipal court ordered the dog killed. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Mercer County affirmed the municipal court's decision. Defendant then appealed the Circuit Court's decision arguing that that Circuit Court erred in concluding that the municipal court had the authority to order the destruction of her dog. After review, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia agreed with defendant and found that under the plain language of W.Va.Code § 19–20–20, the City of Bluefield was required to set forth satisfactory proof that defendant’s dog was “vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons” before a circuit court or a magistrate, not a municipal court. The court therefore found that ordinance was void to the extent that it allowed a municipal court to order the destruction of the dog. The circuit court's order affirming the municipal court's order to kill Ms. Robinson's dog was therefore reversed. Justice Loughry dissents. | Case |
| Resolution No. 14, 2024, Accion de Amparo Rio Maranon- Peru- Do Not publish yet | Resolución 14, 2024, JUZGADO MIXTO-Nauta I |
Resolution No. 14, 2024, Accion de Amparo Rio Maranon- Peru- Do Not publish yet |
Case | |
| GA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-8-1 - 45; Ga. Code Ann., § 4-14-1 - 4-15-1; Ga. Code Ann., § 26-2-160; Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-16 - 18; § 27-3-49; Ga. Code Ann., § 16-11-107 - 107.1; Ga. Code Ann., § 50-3-88 | GA ST § 4-8-1 to 45; GA ST § 4-14-1 to 4-15-1; GA ST § 27-3-16 to 18; § 27-3-49; GA ST § 16-11-107 - 107.1; GA ST § 50-3-88 | These Georgia statutes comprise the state's dog laws and the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law." Among the provisions of the Responsible Dog Ownership Law include a requirement for registration of dangerous dogs as well as the necessity of such owner to carry at least $50,000 in liability insurance. Owners of these dogs who do not comply with these and other provisions may have their dogs confiscated and destroyed. Any person who violates this article is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Petersheim v. Corum | 815 N.E.2d 1132 (Ohio, 2004) | 2004 WL 1812820 |
Driver struck bull that had wandered onto a public highway and driver was killed. Court of appeals ruled for wife in a wrongful death action against the bull's owner. The owner had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the bull's escape. |
Case |
| CA - Burro - § 4600. Killing or capturing undomesticated burro; prima facie evidence | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4600 | CA FISH & G § 4600 | This section makes it unlawful to kill, wound, capture, or have in possession any undomesticated burro. An undomesticated burro is a wild burro or a burro which has not been tamed or domesticated for a period of three years after its capture. | Statute |
| 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 |
| Moody v. State | 253 Ga. 456 (1984) | 253 Ga. 456 (1984) |
Fifty-nine defendants appealed a judgment, which overruled a motion quash an indictment charging defendants with violating the dogfighting statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37 . The court ruled the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad, and that it required knowing and consensual involvement in dogfighting, therefore intent. The court further ruled that the law prohibited participation by gambling on the act, and the statute did not infringe on constitutionally protected conduct. |
Case |
| CO - Slaughter - Decreto 1500 de 2007 | Decreto 1500 de 2007 | Decreto 1500, 2007, establishes the technical regulations that create the standards for inspection, supervision, and control in the meat production chain. This decree focuses on the sanitary and health aspects involved in the slaughter phase of livestock. However, there are some provisions that directly or indirectly address animal welfare. Some of these provisions include raising animals in facilities that pose a minimum risk for animal production and welfare. Primary production farms must implement good practices in animal feeding and animal welfare. Transportation vehicles must have adequate physical separation mechanisms to prevent overcrowding, crowding, and animal aggression during transport. In addition, vehicles must have adequate conditions for animal welfare, biosecurity, biocontainment, and sanitary management. Article 31 Num 3 establishes that animals must be slaughtered by non-cruel methods, which ensure that they are rendered unconscious before being slaughtered. The National Institute for Food and Drug Supervision -INVIMA- is the authority in charge of establishing and overseeing compliance with slaughter methods. | Statute | |
| Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Non-Commerical Purposes | The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Non-commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies for reasons other than commercial utilisation of kangaroo products (skins and meat). This Code has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for non-commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering. | Statute |