|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|City of Delray Beach v. St. Juste||989 So.2d 655 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2008)||2008 WL 2261598 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.); 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1456||
In this Florida case, the city of Delray Beach appeals a judgment for damages in favor of plaintiff, who was injured by two loose dogs. Plaintiff was attacked and severely injured by two large dogs owned by a resident of Delray Beach, when the dogs escaped from the resident's fenced yard. The theory of liability was based on the city's knowledge, from prior complaints and an actual visit by an animal control officer, that these dogs were loose from time to time and dangerous. This court agreed with the city, finding that the decision of an animal control officer was discretionary and therefore immune from liability under these circumstances.
|IN - Domestic Violence - 31-9-2-42 “Domestic or family violence”||I.C. 31-9-2-42||IN ST 31-9-2-42||This section of the Family Law Code defines "domestic or family violence" as "[a]busing (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5), torturing (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5), mutilating (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5), or killing a vertebrate animal without justification with the intent to threaten, intimidate, coerce, harass, or terrorize a family or household member."||Statute|
|VA - Dangerous - § 3.2-6540. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties||Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 - 6542||VA ST § 3.2-6540 - 6542||These Virginia statutes amended in 2013 provide the state's dangerous dog laws. The first law outlines control procedures for a dangerous dog, defined as a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat.. The new section deals with a "vicious dog," defined as a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person, (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by ordinance that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.||Statute|
|OH - Reynoldsburg - Breed - 505.35 Control and harboring of vicious or dangerous dogs and other vicious or dangerous animals.||REYNOLDSBURG, OH., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 505.01, 505.35 (1996)||
In Reynoldsburg, Ohio, no person shall own, keep, or harbor any vicious dog, which includes any pit bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the second degree, and the vicious dog shall be seized, impounded, and humanely destroyed.
|Smegal v. Gettys||48 So.3d 431 (La.App. 1 Cir., 2010)||2010 WL 4272594 (La.App. 1 Cir.)||
Plaintiff Steven Smegal appeals a judgment that found him 50% at fault in a dog bite case. The incident occurred after the dog owned by Smegal's neighbor (Gettys) ran into the street and was hit by a school bus. Smegal approached the injured dog too closely and was bitten on his ankle. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit affirmed the lower court's finding. The court held that Smegal's actions did not constitute provocation where the dog's owners were also approaching the injured dog in an "equally provocative" manner. As to allocation of fault, the court found that while it was Gettys' failure to restrain the dog that was the ultimate cause of the accident, Smegal chose to approach the injured dog despite his training and knowledge as a police officer. Thus, this set of facts supported the trial court's allocation of comparative fault.
|CA - Research animals - Group 5. Care of Laboratory Animals||Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1150 -1159||17 CCR §§ 1150 -1159||This set of regulations establishes certification requirements for research facilities that use live animals in experiments, sets minimum standards of care for research animals, and addresses the requirements for filing complaints with the Department of Public Health.||Administrative|
|U.S. v. Stevens||533 F.3d 218, 2008 WL 2779529 (C.A.3 (Pa.),2008)||Note that certiorari was granted in 2009 by --- S.Ct. ----, 2009 WL 1034613 (U.S. Apr 20, 2009). In this case, the Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 48, the federal law that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty, is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The defendant in this case was convicted after investigators arranged to buy three dogfighting videos from defendant in sting operation. Because the statute addresses a content-based regulation on speech, the court considered whether the statute survived a strict scrutiny test. The majority was unwilling to extend the rationale of Ferber outside of child pornography without direction from the Supreme Court. The majority found that the conduct at issue in § 48 does not give rise to a sufficient compelling interest.||Case|
|European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes||
This treaty applies to animals kept for farming purposes. It outlines the keeping, caring for and housing of farm animals on the farm and especially in modern stock farming systems. Freedom of movement is especially important for animals kept in these systems as well as appropriate lighting, ventilation, temperature and environmental conditions
|US - Endangered Species - Final Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae)||2005 WL 12396 (F.R.)||50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT57||
Under this final rule, the FWS has designated critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker, in 3 noncontiguous populations in The lower and middle Santa Ana River in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties; the East, West, and North Forks of the San Gabriel River in Los Angeles County; and lower Big Tujunga Creek, a tributary of the Los Angeles River in Los Angeles County. We have identified 23,719 acres (ac) (9,599 hectares (ha)) of aquatic and riparian habitats essential to the conservation of the Santa Ana sucker.