Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horton v. State | Horton v. State, 27 So. 468 (Ala. 1900). |
The defendant was charged under the Alabama cruelty to animal statute killing a dog. The trial court found the defendant guilty of cruelly killing the dog. The defendant appealed the descision to the Supreme Court for the determination if the killing of the dog with a rifle was cruel. The Supreme Court found that the killing of a dog without the showing of cruelty to the animal was not a punishable offence under the cruelty to animal statute. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's descision and remanded it. |
Case | |
| Poarch Creek Band of Indians of Alabama. 8-6-31-Cruelty to Animals | Chapter VI, Title 8, Section 8-6-31 | Under Sec. 8-6-31, cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor. A person who, without justification, knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment by actions defined in the statute commit the crime of cruelty to animals. | Statute | |
| SD - Bite - Chapter 40-34. Dog Licenses and Regulation (Vicious Dog Provisions) | S D C L § 40-34-13 to 16 | SD ST § 40-34-13 to 16 | This South Dakota statute provides that a vicious dog, defined as any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or otherwise attacks a human being including a mailman, meter reader, serviceman, etc. who is on private property by reason of permission of the owner, is a public nuisance. However, no dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. | Statute |
| NH - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5:15-b; § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a; § 376-A:15 | NH ST § 5:15-b; § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a; § 376-A:15 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Lessman v. Rhodes | 721 N.E.2d 178(1999) |
Plaintiff, a participant in a horse show, was injured when a stallion bucked and kicked him; he sued the show’s sponsor, and the stallion’s rider and owner alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct, by failing to conduct background checks into the horses and by failing to separate the stallions participating in the show, inter alia . The Equine Activity Liability Act, which was established to shield those persons who participate in equine activities from liability, provides an exception to the general rule by permitting liability for equine activity sponsors that commit “an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission caused the injury.” In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed that the defendants behaved in a reckless or intentional manner, therefore the summary judgment in favor of the defendant entered by the trial court was founded to be proper. |
Case | |
| Dodge v. Durdin | 187 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. App.-Hous. (1 Dist.), 2005) | 2005 WL 3214618 (Tex. App.-Hous. (1 Dist.)) |
Employee brought a negligence action against employer for injuries suffered when administering medicine to an untamed horse. District Court granted summary judgment stating that the plaintiff was considered a "participant" under the Equine Act. Plaintiff appealed. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case stating that the Equine Act did not apply because the Act covered consumers, not employees. |
Case |
| Bone v. Vill. Club, Inc. | 223 F.Supp. 3d 1203 (M.D. Fla. 2016) | This case dealt with a woman's request to have her emotional-support dog live with her before purchasing land in a mobile home community, known as Brookhaven. Prior to purchasing her lot, the plaintiff allegedly received permission from the president of Brookhaven's board of directors to keep her dog, even though the plaintiff was purchasing a lot in the "no pet" section of Brookhaven. The plaintiff provided the president of the board with the documentation requested, and the president told plaintiff she had been approved by the board to have her dog. Approximately one year after plaintiff purchased her lot, Brookhaven's attorney sent a letter requesting that plaintiff remove her dog, citing Brookhaven's policies disallowing her dog. After several letters sent back and forth between plaintiff's attorney and Brookhaven's attorney concerning requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the party's respective actions, both parties cross-moved for summary judgement. The court held that 1) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether tenant had an actual disability; 2) landlord was not prejudiced by tenant's untimely disclosure of expert report; 3) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord constructively denied tenant an accommodation; and 4) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord retaliated against tenant for requesting a disability accommodation. As a result, all motions for summary judgement were denied. | Case | |
| OK - Veterinary - Chapter 15. Oklahoma Veterinary Practice Act. | 59 Okl. St. Ann. § 698.1 - 33 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| MN - Hunting - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. General Provisions. | M. S. A. § 97A.105 | MN ST § 97A.105 | In Minnesota, there are license requirements for breeding fur-bearing animals, game birds, bear, and mute swans. Fox and mink may not be bought or sold for breeding unless they have been pen-bred for at least two generations. Live beaver may not be transported without a permit. A violation may result in all animals being confiscated. It is not necessary to have a license to purchase live game birds or their eggs if the birds are released, consumed, or processed within one year. | Statute |
| Department of Local Government and Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd | Western Australia Magistrates Court, 8 February 2008, Magistrate C.P. Crawford |
The central allegation was that the defendants transported the sheep in a way likely to cause unnecessary harm. Magistrate Crawford found that the sheep, some of which died from inanition, suffered distress and harm and that this harm was unnecessary. Proof of actual harm, however, was unnecessary as it only had to be shown that it was likely that the sheep would suffer harm. This required evidence pointing only to the conditions onboard the ship, and voyage plan, as at the first day. The defences of necessity and honest and reasonable belief were both dismissed. |
Case |