Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strawser v. Wright | 610 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio App. 12 Dist., 1992) |
Plaintiff sued defendant dog breeders after defendants misrepresented that the dog had been vaccinated as a newborn against Parvo. In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on the issue of negligent infliction of emotional distress the court noted that dogs are considered property in Ohio. While the court sympathized "with one who must endure the sense of loss which may accompany the death of a pet; however, we cannot ignore the law . . . Ohio law simply does not permit recovery for serious emotional distress which is caused when one witnesses the negligent injury or destruction of one's property." |
Case | |
| OR - Domestic Violence - 107.718. Court order when petitioner in imminent danger of abuse (allows pets) | O.R.S. § 107.718 | OR ST § 107.718 | Under this Oregon law, if requested by a petitioner who has been the victim of domestic abuse, the court may enter an order to protect a companion or therapy animal. This includes an order to "[p]revent the neglect and protect the safety of any service or therapy animal or any animal kept for personal protection or companionship, but not an animal kept for any business, commercial, agricultural or economic purpose." | Statute |
| MO - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.A.M.S. 253.185; 270.010; 272.050; 273.010 - 405; 77.510; 80.090; 322.010 - 080; 10.112 - 113 | MO ST 253.185; 270.010; 272.050; 273.010 - 405; 77.510; 80.090; 322.010 - 080; 10.112 - 113 | These Missouri statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws for impounding loose dogs, licensing, rabies control, and the Animal Care Facilities Act, which regulates commercial breeders/pet shops. | Statute |
| Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Department of Agr. | 134 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1998) | 328 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,538 |
A nonprofit organization petitioned for review of the order of administrative law judge (ALJ) which denied organization's motion to intervene in administrative proceedings under Animal Welfare Act. The Court of Appeals held that the organization's failure to appeal administrative denial to judicial officer precluded judicial review of ALJ's actions. |
Case |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 13 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Animal & Natural Resource LawVol. |
Policy | ||
| Crossroads Apartments Associates v. LeBoo | 152 Misc.2d 830 (N.Y. 1991) | Landlord brought an eviction proceeding against tenant with a history of mental illness for possession of a cat in his rental unit in violation of a no pets policy. Tenant alleged that he needed the cat to alleviate his "intense feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and depression, which are daily manifestations of his mental illness." The court held that in order to prove that the pet is necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling, he must prove "that he has an emotional and psychological dependence on the cat which requires him to keep the cat in the apartment." The court denied the housing authority's motion for summary judgment, stating that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the cat was necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling. | Case | |
| NM - Property - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | NMSA 1978, § 77-1-1 | NM ST § 77-1-1 | Dogs, cats and domestic birds are considered personal property in New Mexico. | Statute |
| MD - Bite - Maryland Dangerous Dog Laws | MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-619 | MD CRIM LAW § 10-619 | This Maryland statute outlines what is a "Dangerous dog." As defined by statute, it is a dog that, without provocation, has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person, or it is a potentially dangerous dog that bites a person, when not on its owner's real property, kills or inflicts severe injury on a domestic animal, or attacks without provocation. An owner of a dangerous dog must keep the dog securely enclosed on his or her property or must muzzle and restrain the dog. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500. | Statute |
| Jones v. State | 473 So. 2d 1197 (Ala. App. 1985) |
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully owning, possessing, keeping or training a dog or dogs with intent that such dog or dogs be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog, and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that: (1) dogfighting statute was not unconstitutionally vague; (2) testimony of animal cruelty investigator was sufficient for jury to conclude that defendant owned dogs after effective date of antidog-fighting statute; (3) evidence as to poor conditions of dogs and their vicious propensities exhibited while lodged at animal shelter was relevant to issue of defendant's intent to fight the dogs; and (4) evidence gained by police officer pursuant to search warrant was not inadmissible.
|
Case | |
| IN - Hunting - 15-17-14.7-13 Types of weapons allowed during hunt; computer assisted remote hunting; sedation; restricted areas | I.C. 15-17-14.7-13 | IN ST 15-17-14.7-13 | This Indiana law states that a hunting preserve may not allow computer assisted hunting. | Statute |