Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | U.C.A. 1953 § 10-8-65; § 4-40-101 - 102; § 18-1-1 - 4; § 18-2-101; § 23A-12-204 - 205; § 23A-5-309 - 310; § 26B-7-210 - 211; § 26B-1-236; § 58-28-601 | UT ST § 10-8-65; § 4-40-101 - 102; § 18-1-1 - 4; § 18-2-101; § 23A-12-204 - 205; § 23A-5-309 - 310; § 26B-7-210 - 211; § 26B-1-236; § 58-28-601 | These Utah statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal pound pet sterilization provisions, rabies control laws, hunting laws that impact dogs, and laws concerning injuries caused by dogs. | Statute | |
| NY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 331 - 382; McKinney's Penal Law § 130.20 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 331 - 382; NY PENAL § 130.20 | These New York statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. "Animal" includes every living creature except a human being. A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both. Exclusions include properly conducted scientific tests, experiments or investigations, involving the use of living animals approved by the state commissioner of health. | Statute | |
| Brinton v. Codoni | Not Reported in P.3d, 2009 WL 297006 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2009) |
This unpublished Washington case stems from an attack on plaintiff's dog by a neighbor's dog. Plaintiff sued for damages, alleging negligence and nuisance. The trial court ruled on partial summary judgment that the plaintiff's damages were limited, as a matter of law, to the dog's fair market value. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to damages based on the dog's intrinsic value (i.e., utility and service and not sentimental attachment) and her emotional distress. On appeal, this court held that since the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that her dog had no fair market value, the trial court properly limited damages to that value. Further, because the plaintiff's nuisance claims were grounded in negligence, she was not entitled to damages beyond those awarded for her negligence claim. |
Case | ||
| Hamlin v. Sullivan | 93 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) | 2012 WL 850717 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.); 939 N.Y.S.2d 770 |
Plaintiff was walking her dog in an area of state where dogs go off-leash. Plaintiff and defendant were back in the parking lot talking when defendant's dog, who was still off-leash, ran into her, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. The appellate court found that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to meet the burden establishing that the dog had a proclivity to run into people and knock them over. While testimony showed that the dog (Quinn) routinely ran up to people and put his paws on their chest to "greet" them, this was different than a propensity to knock people down. The court found that the behavior of jumping on people "was not the behavior that resulted in plaintiff's injury, and plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that defendant had notice of a proclivity by Quinn to run into people and knock them over. . ." The court also noted that the dog's rambunctious behavior, occurring at a dog park where dogs freely run around, was insufficient to establish vicious propensities. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. |
Case | |
| England - Slaughter - The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012 | 2012 No. 501 | These Regulations amended the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995. Provisions extend the range of birds that can be killed by gas mixtures in specific circumstances, and extend the time limits under which a prosecution may be brought. | Statute | ||
| RI - Pet Sales - Chapter 25. Pet Warranties--Dogs | Gen.Laws 1956, § 4-25-1 to 10 | RI ST § 4-25-1 to 10 | This Rhode Island chapter enacted in 2007 created a remedy for purchasers who are sold dogs with disease or hereditary defects. Upon sale, a seller is required to give purchasers a written statement that gives the dog's breed, breeder, license number (if applicable), a record of inoculations, and a record of the dog's veterinary diagnoses and treatments. Both the seller and purchaser must sign and date a written statement from the seller that states that the dog either has not known disease, illness, or hereditary condition that adversely affects its health, or a statement that fully describes the diseases or conditions. A purchaser is entitled to relief from the seller after the purchase of a dog if within twenty (20) days after the purchase of the dog, a licensed veterinarian states in writing that the animal is suffering from or has died from an illness, disease or other defect adversely affecting the animal's health and that this condition existed in the dog on or before delivery to the purchaser, or within two (2) years after the purchase of the animal, a licensed veterinarian states in writing that the animal possesses or has died from a congenital or hereditary condition adversely affecting its health. | Statute | |
| NC - Trusts - § 36C-4-408. Trust for care of animal | N.C.G.S.A. § 36C-4-408 | NC ST § 36C-4-408 | This North Carolina provides that a trust for the care of one or more designated domestic or pet animals alive at the time of creation of the trust is valid. Further, no portion of the principal or income may be converted to the use of the trustee or to any use other than for the benefit of the designated animal or animals. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal named or the last surviving animal named in the trust. | Statute | |
| Com. v. Raban | 31 A.3d 699 (Pa.Super., 2011) | 2011 PA Super 212 (2011); 2011 WL 4582435 (Pa.Super.) |
Defendant was convicted of violating the dog law for failing to properly confine his dog after it escaped from his property and attacked another dog. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that 1) scienter was not a necessary element of the violation because the statutory mandate to confine a dog was stated absolutely, and 2) a dog attack is not a de minimis infraction that would preclude a conviction. |
Case | |
| State v. Fackrell | 277 S.W.3d 859 (Mo.App. S.D.,2009) |
In this Missouri case, defendant appealed her conviction for animal abuse. The facts underlying defendant's conviction involve her care of her dog from July 2004 to December 2004. When defendant's estranged husband stopped by her house to drop off their children for visitation in December, he noticed that the dog was very sick and offered to take the dog to the vet after defendant stated she could not afford a vet bill. Because it was the worst case the vet had seen in twenty-seven years of practice, he contacted law enforcement. On appeal, defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence presented that she “knowingly” failed to provide adequate care for Annie. The court disagreed. Under MO ST 578.012.1(3), a person is guilty of animal abuse when he or she fails to provide adequate care including "health care as necessary to maintain good health." Evidence showed that defendant was aware of the fact the dog was sick over the course of several months and even thought the dog had cancer. |
Case | ||
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart E - Similarity of Appearance | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 17.50 to .52 | This Subpart of the ESA regulations allows the designation of a species, which is not Endangered or Threatened but closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species, as a "de facto" Endangered or Threatened species if the director of the USFWS determines the listing is necessary. Factors that influence this decision include the degree of difficulty enforcement personnel would have in distinguishing the species from an Endangered or Threatened species (including those cases where the criteria for recognition of a species are based on geographical boundaries); the additional threat posed to the Endangered or Threatened species by the loss of control occasioned because of the similarity of appearance; and the probability that so designating a similar species will substantially facilitate enforcement and further the purposes and policy of the Act. | Administrative |