Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 6130
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
TX - Dallas - Dallas City Code. Volume I. Chapter 7. Animals. Sec. 7-1.1 - Sec. 7-8.3

This comprises Dallas, Texas' animal control and dangerous dog ordinances. Among the provisions is a requirement that an owner of an animal restrain the animal at all times in a fenced yard, in an enclosed pen or structure, or by a tether or leash. Other provisions of interest include an anti-trapping provision; a section that prohibits the carrying or transporting of an animal within the open bed of any moving pickup; and limitations on the number of dogs or cats that residents can maintain based on the size of the lot and proximity to other dwellings. Dallas has a mandatory spay/neuter requirement; an owner of a dog or cat commits an offense if the animal is not spayed or neutered once over six months old (subject to certain exemptions). Further, a person commits an offense if he or she breeds a dog or cat without a valid intact animal permit for the dog or cat. Other provisions include the keeping of prohibited animals, the keeping of roosters, and noise disturbances by animals.

Local Ordinance
Mark, Stoner, Setter and Pearson v Henshaw (1998) 155 ALR 118 (1998) 85 FCR 555; [1998] FCA 556

The four appellants, members of Animal Liberation, entered premises containing battery hens without permission. This was done allegedly on concern as to the treatment of those battery hens and the appellants claimed this constituted a reasonable excuse. After a second appeal, the convictions were upheld and it was found that the appellants did not have a reasonable excuse for trespass.

Case
Jankoski v. Preiser Animal Hospital, Ltd. 510 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987).

Plaintiff dog owners sought review of an order of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Illinois), which dismissed their complaint against defendants, animal hospital and veterinarians, with prejudice. The trial court held that plaintiffs' complaint to recover damages for the loss of companionship they experienced as a result of the death of their dog failed to state a cause of action. The court affirmed the order of the trial court that dismissed the complaint filed by plaintiff dog owners against defendants, animal hospital and veterinarians. The court held that the law did not permit a dog owner to recover for the loss of companionship of a dog.

Case
Ley Nº 23.899, 1990 Ley Nº 23.899 Ley 23.899, 1990 creates the National Service of Animal Health, and establishes its purposes, responsibilities and organization. According to this law, The National Service of Animal Health executes governmental policy on animal health. The main purpose of NSAH is to prevent, control and eradicate animal diseases and animal diseases transmissible to humans, to exercise hygienic-sanitary control of all products of animal origin, taking into account the advances in health technology and the most modern procedures for its control and the control of the products destined to the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of animal diseases. This entity is formed by an executive structure; a board of directors and provincial or regional commissions. The National Service of Animal is an entity of public private law with National scope, that maintains its relations with the national government through the Undersecretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishing of the Nation. Statute
CO - Dangerous Dog- Article 9. Offenses Against Public Peace, Order, and Decency. C. R. S. A. § 18-9-204.5; C. R. S. A. § 35-42-115 CO ST § 18-9-204.5; CO ST § 35-42-115

This Colorado statute defines a "dangerous dog" as one that has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or domestic animal; or has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animal; or has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting as described by statute.  Owners found guilty under the provisions will be subject to misdemeanor penalties if their dogs cause bodily injury or felonies if their dogs cause the death of a person. Section CO ST § 35-42-115 mandates that the bureau create a a statewide dangerous dog registry consisting of a database of information concerning microchip types and placement by veterinarians and licensed shelters in dangerous dogs.

Statute
Johnson v. City of Murray 544 Fed.Appx. 801 (C.A.10 (Utah),2013) 2013 WL 5832524 (C.A.10 (Utah),2013)

An animal control employee lost her job due to the city’s decision to outsource the department to another city. Plaintiff sued the city on eleven counts, but lost due to the district court’s grant of the city’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiff lost on her First Amendment, American Disability Act, Utah Protection of Public Employees Act, and breach of contract claims.

Case
MI - Pet Trusts - Chapter 700. Estates and Protected Individuals Code. Estates and Protected Individuals Code. M. C. L. A. 700.2722 MI ST 700.2722 This Michigan statute provides that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid (these trusts follow the terms for non-charitable trusts and thus, can be of a duration of up to 21 years). The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the transferor's intent and the court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use. Statute
Sweden - Cruelty - The Sweden Animal Welfare Act SFS 1998:56

The Swedish Animal Welfare Act applies to the care and treatment of domestic animals, and other animals if they are kept in captivity or are used for any of the purposes referred to in section 19 (generally, scientific uses).  It provides that animals shall be treated well and shall be protected from unnecessary suffering and disease, among other things.

Statute
Posnien v. Rogers 533 P.2d 120 (Utah 1975)

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the defendant's negligence in the diagnosis and the treatment of plaintiff's brood mare, which resulted in the mare's infertility. Plaintiff was required to show that Dr. Rogers did not exercise the care and diligence as is ordinarily exercised by skilled veterinarians doing the same type of work in the community, and that the failure to exercise the required skill and care was the cause of the injury. Experts testified at trial that the care exercised by Dr. Rogers met the standard of care of veterinarians practicing in the area, and had they been treating the mare, the treatment would not have differed substantially from that of Dr. Rogers.  The Supreme Court held that the record is clear that the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden that the care of Dr. Rogers did not meet the standard of care of other practitioners practicing in the community.

Case
Heiligmann v. Rose 16 S.W. 931 (Tex.,1891) 81 Tex. 222, 16 S.W. 931 (1891)

Appellees sued appellant for damages after he poisoned three of their dogs. The Court held that an owner has an action and remedy against a trespasser for damages resulting from injuries inflicted upon dogs because they are property. The Court elaborated on the true rule in determining the value of dogs, explaining that  It may be either a market value or some special or pecuniary value to the owner. The Court allowed actual damages.

Case

Pages