Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 6138
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Hamlin v. Sullivan 93 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) 2012 WL 850717 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.); 939 N.Y.S.2d 770

Plaintiff was walking her dog in an area of state where dogs go off-leash. Plaintiff and defendant were back in the parking lot talking when defendant's dog, who was still off-leash, ran into her, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. The appellate court found that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to meet the burden establishing that the dog had a proclivity to run into people and knock them over. While testimony showed that the dog (Quinn) routinely ran up to people and put his paws on their chest to "greet" them, this was different than a propensity to knock people down. The court found that the behavior of jumping on people "was not the behavior that resulted in plaintiff's injury, and plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that defendant had notice of a proclivity by Quinn to run into people and knock them over. . ." The court also noted that the dog's rambunctious behavior, occurring at a dog park where dogs freely run around, was insufficient to establish vicious propensities. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.

Case
CT - Cruelty - § 54-86n. Appointment of advocate in proceeding re the welfare or custody of a cat or dog. C.G.S.A. § 54-86n CT ST § 54-86n This 2016 law states that, in a cruelty or welfare proceedings, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. That advocate can monitor the case and supply the court with information about the welfare of the cat or dog. The Department of Agriculture shall maintain a list of attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students, or anticipate having students, with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Such attorneys and law students shall be eligible to serve on a voluntary basis as advocates under this section. Statute
MT - Fur - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. MCA 87-4-1001 to 87-4-1014 MT ST 87-4-1001 to 87-4-1014 In Montana statutes, a person may not own or propagate furbearers unless the person holds a fur farm license. Each licensee must keep records as to the animals and purchasers involved.  A fur farm license may be revoked for failure to operate the fur farm according to the provisions. Statute
IN - Veterinary - Article 38.1. Veterinarians. I.C. 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 IN ST 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5

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
Com. v. Raban 31 A.3d 699 (Pa.Super., 2011) 2011 PA Super 212 (2011); 2011 WL 4582435 (Pa.Super.)

Defendant was convicted of violating the dog law for failing to properly confine his dog after it escaped from his property and attacked another dog. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that 1) scienter was not a necessary element of the violation because the statutory mandate to confine a dog was stated absolutely, and 2) a dog attack is not a de minimis infraction that would preclude a conviction.

Case
Scott v. Donkel 671 So.2d 741 (Ala.Civ.App.,1995)

In this Alabama case, there was an injury to a non-tenant child by a dog bite, and the defendant was a landlord.  The attack occurred off the rented premises in the public street.    The action was based upon negligence, that is, a failure to protect against a dangerous condition.   The key to such a claim is the knowledge of the landlord. Plaintiff presented no evidence of the landlord being aware of the dog let alone that he knew of its vicious propensity.   The court did not find a duty to inspect the premises and discover this information.  The court did not reach the point that the attack occurred off the premises.  The granting of the motion for summary judgment for the landlord was upheld.

Case
State v. Fackrell 277 S.W.3d 859 (Mo.App. S.D.,2009)

In this Missouri case, defendant appealed her conviction for animal abuse. The facts underlying defendant's conviction involve her care of her dog from July 2004 to December 2004. When defendant's estranged husband stopped by her house to drop off their children for visitation in December, he noticed that the dog was very sick and offered to take the dog to the vet after defendant stated she could not afford a vet bill. Because it was the worst case the vet had seen in twenty-seven years of practice, he contacted law enforcement. On appeal, defendant claimed that there was insufficient evidence presented that she “knowingly” failed to provide adequate care for Annie. The court disagreed. Under MO ST 578.012.1(3), a person is guilty of animal abuse when he or she fails to provide adequate care including "health care as necessary to maintain good health." Evidence showed that defendant was aware of the fact the dog was sick over the course of several months and even thought the dog had cancer.

Case
How to add a Statute

Once you log on, go to the upper gray bar and click on "Add Content."

From there, select "Statute."

ALL STATUTES MUST FIRST BE SAVED IN PLAIN TEXT FORMAT LIKE IN NOTEPAD. YOU WILL COPY AND PASTE FROM NOTEPAD. THIS MUST BE DONE TO REMOVE FORMATTING.

Basic page
Tighe v. N. Shore Animal League Am. 36 N.Y.S.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) 142 A.D.3d 607, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05807

In this New York case, the defendant appeals denial of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries after the dog she adopted from defendant-North Shore Animal League America bit plaintiff's face causing severe personal injuries. Plaintiff alleges causes of action that include negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interposed a claim for punitive damages. After defendant opposed the filing, plaintiff submitted evidence that the dog previously had been returned to defendant animal shelter after biting another individual in the face. This court noted that, under long-standing rule, the owner of a domestic animal who knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities is liable for harm. However, here, even if defendant failed to disclose the dog's vicious propensities, that breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. In fact, the dog showed aggressive behavior during the three-and-a-half months the plaintiff owned the dog (including a previous bite to plaintiff's hand). This, in effect, placed the plaintiff on notice of the dog's vicious propensities. The court found that the lower court erred by not granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. With regard to the reach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the court found that even if a transaction from an animal shelter is subject to the warranty, the plaintiff failed to notify defendant of the "nonconformity of the goods" (to wit, the dog) within a reasonable period of time. The order was reversed.

Case
MI - Fishing - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. M.C.L.A. 324.48701 - 48727 MI ST 324.48701 - 48727

These sections lay out the guidelines for sport fishing including legal fishing devices, the open season for each species as well as the minimum legal size requirement for each species of fish.

Statute

Pages