Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH - Dog Bite - Chapter 466. Dogs and Cats. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 466:31 to 31-a | NH ST § 466:31 to 31-a | Under this section, a dog is considered to be a nuisance, a menace, or vicious to persons or to property if it is "at large," if it barks for sustained periods, if it chases cars continuously, or if it growls, snaps at or bites persons. If a dog bites a person and breaks the skin, the animal control officer must inform the victim whether the dog was vaccinated against rabies within 24 hours. | Statute | |
| State v. Taylor | 322 S.W.3d 722 (Tex.App.-Texarkana,2010) | 2010 WL 3023282 (Tex.App.-Texarkana) |
Defendant was charged with a violation of Section 822.005(a)(2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code - the dog attack statute. The trial court dismissed the indictment stating that Section 822.005(a)(2) was unconstitutional because it fails to set forth any required culpable mental state. The Court of Appeals, however, found that the statute was constitutional because it does set forth a culpable mental state. "[B]oth the plain language of Sections 822.005(a)(2) and 822.042 impose upon the owner of a dangerous dog the duty to restrain or secure his or her animal." |
Case | |
| LaPlace v. Briere | 962 A.2d 1139 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2009) | 404 N.J.Super. 585 (2009); 2009 WL 62875 |
In this New Jersey case, a horse owner brought an action against the person who exercised his horse while the horse was being boarded at the defendant's stable. While the stable employee was "lunging" the horse, the horse reared up, collapsed on his side with blood pouring from his nostrils, and then died. On appeal of summary judgment for the defendant, the court held that the person who exercised horse could not be liable under the tort of conversion as she did not exercise such control and dominion over the horse that she seriously interfered with plaintiff's ownership rights in the horse. While the court found that a bailment relationship existed, the plaintiff failed to come forward with any additional evidence that established the horse was negligently exercised or that the exercise itself was a proximate cause of its death. The grant of summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.
|
Case | |
| OR - Fur - 167.390. Commerce in fur of domestic cats and dogs | O. R. S. § 167.390 | OR ST § 167.390 | In Oregon, a person may not take, buy, sell, barter or otherwise exchange for commerce in fur purposes the raw fur or products that include the fur of a domestic cat or dog if the fur is obtained through a process that kills or maims the cat or dog. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor when the offense is committed with a culpable mental state as defined in ORS 161.085. | Statute | |
| MO - Lost Dog - Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act | V. A. M. S. 447.010 - 110 | MO ST 447.010 - 110 | This section comprises Missouri's Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. | Statute | |
| Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assoc. Animal Hosp. | 785 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio App. 2 Dist.,2003) | 151 Ohio App.3d 741, 2003 -Ohio- 917 (Ohio App. 2 Dist.,2003) |
This is the story of “Poopi,” a dog who tried to sue for emotional distress and failed. As the court observed, "Whether or not one agrees with the view that pets are more than personal property, it is clear that Ohio does not recognize noneconomic damages for injury to companion animals." While the court noted that one Ohio case has apparently left open the door for recover of distress damages, "the mental anguish in such situations must be ‘so serious and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.’ Even conceding the bond between many humans and their pets, the burden is one that would be very difficult to meet." Indeed, the court found that the burden was not met here. |
Case | |
| Moore v. Myers | 868 A.2d 954 (Md. 2005) | 161 Md. App. 349 (2005) |
A twelve-year-old girl was running away from her neighbor's pit bull when she was struck by a car. The girl's mother brought claims on behalf of her daughter and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the neighbors on all counts and submitted the question of the driver's negligence to the jury. The Court of Appeals reversed in part holding questions of the dog owner's violation of county law, whether the fifteen year old son owed a duty to protect the girl from the dog, and whether actions by the son breached his duty to protect were all questions for the jury. |
Case | |
| NH - Exotic Pets - Part FIS 804. Possession of Wildlife | NH ADC FIS 804.01 - .07 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 804.01 - .07 | Under these New Hampshire regulations, a permit to possess wildlife shall not be required for any person to possess wildlife designated as non-controlled (species such as aquarium fish, amphibians, reptiles except for alligators, crocodiles, and venomous species, many pet birds, small pet mammals like gerbils and hamsters, and certain ungulates). However, no person shall be issued a permit to possess wildlife that has been designated as prohibited. These prohibited species include, among others, zebra mussels, non-indigenous crayfish, walking catfish, and the white amur. A person must possess a permit to possess any live wildlife, or their hybrids, designated as controlled. Table 800.2 lists the controlled species which include many wild turtles and salamanders, alligators, crocodiles, badgers, bears, cougars, coyotes, elephants, kangaroos, big cats, and large primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Any person who has legally acquired and possesses wildlife under a valid permit in 1992, and continuously since, and such wildlife is now designated as prohibited or controlled, shall be issued a permit to possess such wildlife. | Administrative | |
| SD - Vehicle - SDCL § 41-1-12. Euthanasia of animal injured in motor vehicle accident | SDCL § 41-1-12 - 13 | SD ST § 41-1-12 - 13 | Any person who has seriously injured a wildlife animal or who comes upon a wildlife animal that has been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident may euthanize the animal if that person has the means, skill, and will to euthanize humanely. | Statute | |
| State v. Newcomb | 359 Or 756 (2016) | In this case, the Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed a case in which defendant accused the State of violating her constitutional rights by taking a blood sample of her dog without a warrant to do so. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant did not have a protected privacy interest in the dog’s blood and therefore the state did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant’s dog, Juno, was seized by the Humane Society after a worker made a visit to plaintiff’s home and had probable cause to believe that Juno was emaciated from not receiving food from plaintiff. After Juno was seized and taken into custody for care, the veterinarian took a blood sample from Juno to confirm that there was no other medical reason as to why Juno was emaciated. Defendant argued that this blood test was a violation of her constitutional rights because the veterinarian did not have a warrant to perform the test. The court dismissed this argument and held that once Juno was taken into custody, defendant had “lost her rights of dominion and control over Juno, at least on a temporary basis.” Finally, the court held that because Juno was lawfully seized and Juno’s blood was “not ‘information’ that defendant placed in Juno for safekeeping or to conceal from view,” defendant’s constitutional rights had not been violated. | Case |