|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Com. v. Hake||Com. v. Hake, 738 A.2d 46 (1998)||
Dog owner appealed conviction of harboring a dangerous dog that attacked a child in violation of the Dangerous Dog Statute. The Commonwealth Court held that the statute imposes strict liability for the dog’s first bite if a dog inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation.
|Topical Introductions||Welcome to our Topical Introductions Page! Topical Introductions function as portals to more information on specific topics from "ag-gag" to zoos. Each topic introduction contains a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific issue with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from companion animal issues (like dog bite laws, lost pets, and custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. Are you looking for a specific topic? Go to our Purple Navigation Bar and select "Search Materials." From there, go to "Legal Materials Type" and scroll down to "Topical Introductions" to select one of our 96 different topics. Each topic is listed in alphabetical order.||Policy|
|In re Marriage of Berger and Ognibene-Berger||(Decisions Without Published Opinions) 834 N.W.2d 82 (Table) (2013)||(unpublished) 2013 WL 1749799||Joe Berger appeals from the provisions of the decree of divorce from Cira Berger, including the court’s grant of Max, the family golden retriever, to Cira. He argues that it would be more equitable to grant him ownership of Max because Cira already owns another dog, Sophie, and the parties’ son, who lives with Joe, is very attached to Max. The district court made their decision based on which party would be more available to care for the dog. This court affirms that decision, citing evidence that Max is licensed to Cira, only Cira’s name is in the dog’s ‘GEO tracker’ device, and Cira got Max medical attention even when Max was in Joe’s care. The court specified that they need not determine a pet's best interests when deciding custody.||Case|
|US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Tuna Purse Seine Vessels in the East||FR Doc. 04-19869||I.D. 082404B||
This Notice announces that on August 9, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order which set aside the final finding made on December 31, 2002, by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant Administrator). Under the terms of this Order, the labeling standard for ``dolphin-safe'' tuna shall be governed by the provisions of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. Under that provision, tuna are deemed dolphin safe if ``no tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna were caught.''
|VA - Fur - § 3.2-6589. Selling garments containing dog or cat fur prohibited; penalty||Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6589||VA ST § 3.2-6589||This Virginia statute makes it illegal to sell a garment containing the fur of a "domestic" dog or cat. Violation incurs up to a $10,000 penalty.||Statute|
|NY - Ordinances - Chapter 62. Of the Consolidated Laws.||McKinney's Town Law § 130||NY TOWN § 130||This New York statute provides that a town board after a public hearing may enact, amend and repeal ordinances, rules and regulations not inconsistent with law, including the restraining of the running at large of horses, cattle, sheep, unmuzzled dogs, whether licensed or not, and those authorizing the impounding and sale of the same for the costs of keeping, proceedings and penalty, or the killing of unmuzzled dogs. It also provides that towns may enact ordinances promoting the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community, as long they are not inconsistent with existing law.||Statute|
|Roos v. Loeser||183 P. 204 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1919)||41 Cal.App. 782 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1919)||
This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the killing of her dog, of the variety known as Pomeranian, by an Airedale belonging to the defendant. In 1919, a California court determined damages to be limited to the veterinary expenses connected with the injury to the animal. In the opinion, the court lovingly discusses the value of the animal. Notwithstanding these words of praise for the small animal, the court decided that the value was limited to the fair market value and related expenses.
|Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. Parshall||806 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2006)||25 A.D.3d 853, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 00064 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2006)||
In this New York case, a then seven-year-old boy was attending a gathering at the home of the owners of a German Shepard dog. According to the plaintiff, the dog growled at him when he arrived and allegedly growled at another man at the party sometime later. Defendant denied hearing the growl and t estimony showed that the boy continued to play with the dog throughout the party and into the next morning. When the boy was leaving in the morning, he attempted to “hug” the dog from behind when the dog turned and bit the boy in the face. In upholding defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court found that even if the dog had initially growled at the boy, that was not enough to establish that the dog had vicious propensities or that the owners had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities.
|England - Circus - The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012||2012 No.||These Regulations set out license conditions for wild animals in travelling circuses, including animal welfare requirements. Licensing conditions include providing lifelong care for the retirement of every licensed animal.||Statute|
|CO - Service animal - Article 23. Training Veterans to Train Their Own Service Dogs Pilot Program||C. R. S. A. § 26-23-101 - 105||CO ST § 26-23-101 - 105||
This set of Colorado laws (effective June of 2016) creates a pilot program for veterans to train their own service dogs. The program identifies a group of up to 10 veterans to pair with dogs. Qualified canine trainers will work with the veterans to use train the dogs for use as service dogs. The program will further offer those veterans who graduate from the program with a trained dog the opportunity and necessary follow-along services to expand the program, if willing, by identifying, fostering, and training a subsequent dog for another eligible veteran who is unable to complete one or more parts of the process due to physical limitations. Other sections of the article explain the criteria for selecting the non-profit agencies for implementation and the creation of a fund in the state treasury.