|Toledo v. Tellings||871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007)||114 Ohio St.3d 278; 2007 -Ohio- 3724||
In this Ohio case, the defendant, who owned three pit bull type dogs, was convicted in the Municipal Court, Lucas County, of violating the Toledo city ordinance that limited ownership to only one pit bull per household. On appeal by the City, the Supreme Court found the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The statutes and the city ordinance are rationally related to serve the legitimate interests of protecting Ohio and Toledo citizens.
|Ananda v. The Village of Glenview||After a dog bite incident, the village of Glenview declared plaintiff's dog "vicious." Plaintiff's dog escaped from his mandated enclosure and was impounded by animal control. Plaintiff moved the Circuit Court of Cook County to enter an order transferring ownership of the dog and limiting impoundment fees. The order also asks the court to void the vicious dog determination and to declare section 365 of the Animal Control Act unconstitutional. This document also includes defendant's answer.||Pleading|
|The Ecology Center v. Russell||361 F.Supp.2d 1310 (D.Utah,2005)||
The instant case is a Petition for Review of Agency Action, brought by The Ecology Center and The Aquarius Escalante Foundation (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs seek review of a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Acting Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest (the DNF), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. The decision in question is the final approval by the DNF of the Griffin Springs Resource Management Project, (the Project) in which the DNF approved a plan to allow logging in the Griffin Springs area of the DNF. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the plan, claiming that the ROD violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Of particular concern, is the effect upon the northern goshawk.
|Jackson v. Georgalos||133 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)||2015 WL 7269769 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2015)||Plaintiff appealed an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The personal injury action arises from an incident where defendants' dog, who was barking at the time, jumped on the screen door causing the door to open, whereupon the dog ran out of the house. When the plaintiff turned to get away from the dog, her ankle twisted, causing her to fall on the steps and become injured. To recover in New York on such an action, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or a person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities. The court held that plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was aware of the dog's alleged propensity to run out of the house and chase after people. Defendants' motion summary judgment and dismissal was affirmed.||Case|
|TN - Ordinances - § 44-17-401. Use of electronic locating collars on dogs||T. C. A. § 44-17-401||TN ST § 44-17-401||This Tennessee statute provides that no agency or entity of state or local government shall enact, adopt, promulgate, or enforce any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or other policy which restricts or prevents the owner of any dog from using an electronic locating collar to protect such dog from loss.||Statute|
|State v. Nix||283 P.3d 442 (Or.App., 2012)||2012 WL 3105223 (Or.App., 2012); 251 Or.App. 449 (2012)||
Upon receiving a tip that animals were being neglected, police entered a farm and discovered several emaciated animals, as well as many rotting animal carcasses. After a jury found the defendant guilty of 20 counts of second degree animal neglect, the district court, at the sentencing hearing, only issued a single conviction towards the defendant. The state appealed and argued the court should have imposed 20 separate convictions based on its interpretation of the word "victims" in ORS 161.067(2). The appeals court agreed. The case was remanded for entry of separate convictions on each guilty verdict.
|NJ - Disaster - Article 6. Emergency Powers of Governor||N. J. S. A. App. A:9-43.1 - 2||NJ ST App. A:9-43.1||In New Jersey, the State Office of Emergency Management, and each county and municipality, is directed to adopt a emergency operations plans that include provisions to support the needs of animals and individuals with an animal under their care, including a service animal, in a major disaster or emergency.||Statute|
|Galgano v. Town of North Hempstead||41 A.D.3d 536 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2007)||840 N.Y.S.2d 794, 2007 WL 1704612 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 05223||
In this New York Case, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for personal injuries and damages due to a dog bite. The court reaffirmed New York law that to recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's propensities. The fact that the subject dog was brought to the animal shelter because another dog in the owner's household did not get along with it is not indicative that it had vicious propensities.
|State v. Gerberding||767 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)||2014 WL 6907352 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)||After stabbing and slicing a dog to death, defendant was indicted for felonious cruelty to animals and conspiracy to commit felonious cruelty to animals. She was tried and found guilty of both counts before a jury. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 5 to 15 months for the felonious cruelty to animal conviction, and 4 to 14 months for the conspiracy conviction with both sentences suspended for a term of 18 months probation. Defendant appealed on the basis that the trial court erred on its instructions to the jury. After careful consideration, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly instructed the jury according to the North Carolina pattern jury instructions. Further, the trial court responded appropriately to the question posed by the jury regarding the jury instructions. Accordingly, the appeals court held that the defendant received a fair, error-free trial. Judge Ervin concurs in part and concurs in result in part by separate opinion.||Case|
|AR - Initiatives - Proposed Initiated Act 1 (cruelty)||2002 Proposed Initiative Act 1||This ballot proposal sought to amend Arkansas' Animal Cruelty Act by making the knowing torture, mutilation, maiming, burning, poisoning, malicious killing, starving, or disfiguring of a non-exempted animal a crime known as "Aggravated Animal Cruelty." This offense would then become a Class D felony subject to enumerated penalties, including psychological counseling and forfeiture of the animal in question. This measure failed at the polls with 38% voting Yes and 62% voting No.||Statute|