Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portillo v. Aiassa | 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 755 (1994) |
In this California case, the plaintiff delivered beer to Race Street Liquors. As he was leaving the store, he was attacked by a German shepherd owned by the tenant. The jury found appellant-landlord did not have actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities prior to renewing the commercial lease. However, the jury found that he would have learned of the dog's dangerous propensities if he had exercised reasonable care in the inspection of his property and that he was negligent in failing to eliminate this dangerous condition. |
Case | |
| WY - Initiative - Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap, Amendment B | Amendment B (2012) | The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens' opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law. It was passed by 84.8% of voters in 2012. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Commission Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens | Commission Directive 2002/4/EC |
This EU commission directive concerns Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens. It mandates that Member States establish a registration system for egg producers covered by Directive 199/74/EC. |
Statute | |
| State Dog Laws | This map gives links to the dog laws of every state. Those files contain what we call the consolidated dog laws. Included topics in these dog laws are dangerous dog/dog bite laws, fish and game laws related to dogs, animal control laws affecting dogs, and dog breeding/sale laws. Some states even have unique laws related to dogs such as designation of state dogs and laws related to dining in outdoor restaurants with pet dogs. To see the District of Columbia (D.C.) laws, click here. | State map | ||
| Map of State Laws Allowing Domestic Violence Orders to Include Pets |
This map shows states that have enacted legislation allowing individuals to include pets in domestic violence protection orders. Typically, these laws allow a petitioner to take possession of companion animals in the home and/or prevent the respondent from harming or removing companion animals. To date (2024), 40 states have such laws as well as D.C. and Puerto Rico. Also see Domestic Violence and Pets: List of States that Include Pets in Protection Orders. |
State map | ||
| Danielson v. Cnty. of Humboldt | --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2024 WL 3175240 (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2024) | Appellant Candis Danielson was seriously injured by dogs owned by Donald Mehrtens on his property. The injuries were so severe that she lost the lower half of her right leg and sustained damage to her other leg and hand. After Danielson was injured, Mehrtens surrendered both dogs to Humboldt County, which resulted in them being declared vicious and euthanized. Mehrtens was also barred from owning dogs for three years. She filed this action for damages against numerous parties, including Mehrtens and the County of Humboldt (Humboldt County or County). The County demurred. This appeal concerns solely the cause of action against the County for its alleged failure to perform a mandatory duty. This court first noted the record demonstrated Mehrtens had at least five different incidents over more than ten years that involved either an attack by his dogs or a report to animal control (including reports on biting, failure to license, and failure to vaccinate). When Dainelson was attacked by Mehrtens dogs in 2021, she argued that the County was liable for her injuries because it failed to perform mandatory duties imposed by the Humboldt County Code like impoundment and euthanasia of dogs that are unvaccinated, unlicensed, and dangerous. The County contended that there is no mandatory duty under the county code, to which the lower court agreed.This court found that the Government Claims Act provides immunity to public entities and employees for legislative action or discretionary law enforcement activity as opposed to mandatory duties. Here, the county ordinance did not impose a mandatory duty for the officer to petition for a hearing after one of Mehrtens' dogs had bitten a neighbor months earlier. In addition, the officer did not have a mandatory duty to impound the dogs due for licensing and rabies vaccination concerns. Finally, the dangerous dog ordinances also did not mandate seizing or impounding the dogs. Within the compulsory rabies vaccination code, the county did not impose a mandatory duty to impound unvaccinated dogs that had bitten someone. The use of the term "shall" in section 547-8 only applied after officer exercised his or her discretion in conducting an investigation. Similarly, the use of the term "shall" in two instances of the chapter on rabies vaccination did not create a mandatory duty because the decision of whether to impound a dog at all was discretionary. While the court "sympathize[d] with her desire to be compensated for her injuries," the failure to identify a law that created "a mandatory duty which was breached by the County" does not exist here. The lower court was affirmed. | Case | |
| City of Canton v. Harris | 489 US 378 (1989) |
Detainee brought civil rights action against city, alleging violation of her right to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody. The Supreme Court held that inadequacy of police training may serve as basis for § 1983 municipal liability only where failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact. |
Case | |
| WA - Ordinances - 16.10.040. Dog control zones--Regulations--License fees, collection, disposition | West's RCWA 16.10.040 | WA ST 16.10.040 | This Washington statute provides that the county commissioners shall by ordinance promulgate the regulations to be enforced within a dog control zone. These shall include provisions for the control of unlicensed dogs and the establishment of license fees. | Statute |
| AZ - License and Vaccination Ordinances - Exemption of cities, towns and counties (dogs/animals) | A. R. S. § 11-1018 | AZ ST § 11-1018 | This Arizona statute exempts cities or towns from the provisions of this article if they impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. Further, the provisions of this article shall not apply to counties which regulate the running at large of dogs in the unincorporated areas of the county by ordinance provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. | Statute |
| Massachusetts General Law Statutes 1860-1872: Chapter 344: Sections 1-3 | Mass. Gen. L. ch. 344 (1869) | The Massachusetts law from 1869 stated in Chapter 344 concerns the treatment of animals. The first section is a generic animal cruelty act. The second section details the punishment for owners of animals that allow their animals to be treated cruelly by a third party. The third section concerns the treatment of animals during transportation. | Statute |