Results

Displaying 6101 - 6110 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Boyer v. Seal 553 So. 2d 827 (La. 1989) In this case, plaintiff filed suit against her daughter under Civil Code article 2321 after her daughter’s cat accidentally tripped plaintiff causing injury to her wrist and back that required medication and hospitalization. Under Civil Code article 2321, plaintiff must show that the domestic animal created an “unreasonable risk of harm” and that any damage that occurred was a direct result of that harm. Additionally, the plaintiff does not need to show that the animal was acting aggressively or was inherently dangerous to collect damages under the code. The court held that plaintiff did not meet this burden of showing an “unreasonable risk of harm” because the cat “getting underfoot and accidentally tripping the plaintiff was not an unreasonable risk.” Case
Van Kleek v. Farmers Insurance Exchange 857 N.W.2d 297 (Neb., 2014) 289 Neb. 730 (2014) Plaintiff agreed to watch a couple’s dog while they were out of town. While plaintiff was caring for the dog, the animal bit her on her lower lip. Plaintiff filed a claim with the couple's insurance company. The insurance company rejected the claim because the plaintiff was also "insured," defined to include “any person ... legally responsible” for covered animals, and the policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries to "insureds." Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment against the insurance company, seeking a determination that the policy covered her claim. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, and the district court sustained the insurance company's motion, reasoning that plaintiff was “legally responsible” for the dog because she fed and watered the animal and let it out of the house while the couple was away. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed and held the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment. Case
US - AWA - Licensing and Inspection Requirements for Dealers of Dogs Intended for Hunting, Breeding, or Security Purposes 2003 WL 1092620 (F.R.) Docket No. 99-087-3

The update of the Definition of Dealer, in Section 1.1 of the Regulation is made to reflect the policy that only wholesale dealers of dogs intended for hunting, security purposes, and breeding, and not dealers of retail services, will be controlled by the regulation.  Thus, there is only a minor change to the definition of dealer, in that it now explicitly excludes any retail outlets where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding or security purposes. 

Administrative
CT - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws C. G. S. A. § 14-226; § 22-327 - 367a; § 26-39; § 26-49; § 26-51; § 26-107 CT ST § 14-226; § 22-327 - § 22-367a; CT ST § 26-39; § 26-49; § 26-51; § 26-107

These Connecticut statutes comprise the state's dog law.  Among the provisions include licensing, kennel, and rabies regulations.  With regard to damage by dogs, the law provides a form of strict liability that states if any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.  The law also contains a unique "dogs on highway" provision that provides that any person owning or having the custody of any dog which habitually goes out on any highway and growls, bites, or snaps at, or otherwise annoys, any person or domestic animal lawfully using such highway or chases or interferes with any motor vehicle so using such highway, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.  Further, among the nuisance provisions, the law states that no person shall own or harbor a dog which is a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition or excessive barking or other disturbance. These laws also contain provisions on reporting neglected or cruelly treated animals.  Finally, Connecticut has an anti-ear cropping measures that prohibits cropping by anyone who is not a registered veterinary surgeon, and who performs the operation when the dog is under an anesthetic.

Statute
UK - Pets - Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 1960 c. 43

For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. An Act to prohibit the abandonment of animals in circumstances likely to cause unnecessary suffering thereto.

Statute
State v. Morival 75 So.3d 810 (Fla.App. 2 Dist., 2011) 2011 WL 6058299 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.)

Defendant moved to dismiss charges of two felony counts of animal cruelty. The District Court of Appeal held that systematically depriving his dogs of nourishment was properly charged as felony animal cruelty rather than misdemeanor.  Defendant fed his dogs so little that they suffered malnutrition over an extended period of time. This amounted to repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.

Case
907 Whitehead Street, Inc. v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 701 F.3d 1345 (C.A.11 (Fla.)) 2012 WL 6061706 (C.A.11 (Fla.))

The appellant in this case, the Ernest Hemingway Home and Museum in Key West, Florida ("Museum"), appeals the lower court's determination that it is an animal exhibitor for purposes of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). Appellant contends that while admission is charged for the Museum, it does not exhibit the Hemingway cats to the public for compensation; thus, the cats are not distributed through interstate commerce. The court, however, found that since the AWA itself is ambiguous on the question of whether "distribution" includes the fixed-site commercial display of animals, the USDA's broader interpretation of "distribution" and "exhibitor" are entitled to legal deference. While the court sympathized with the museum's frustrations, it affirmed the district court's findings of law and held that Museum is an AWA animal exhibitor subject to USDA regulation

Case
OR - Agriculture - § 600.510. Restrictive Confinement of a Pregnant Pig O.R.S. § 600.150 600.150. Restrictive confinement of a pregnant pig, OR ST § 600.150 This Oregon law makes the restrictive confinement of a pregnant pig illegal in the state to phase out the use of gestation crates in the Oregon farming industry. The law makes it illegal to confine a pregnant pig in a way that prevents them from lying down and fully extending their limbs or turning around freely. There are some exceptions to this law, such as for transportation, veterinary care, or during the slaughtering process. Statute
TX - Facility dog - § 21.012. Presence of Qualified Facility Dog or Qualified Therapy Dog in Court Proceeding V. T. C. A., Government Code § 21.012 TX GOVT § 21.012 Texas enacted a facility dog/courthouse dog law in 2021. Under the law, any party to an action filed in a court in this state in which a proceeding related to the action will be held may petition the court for an order authorizing a qualified facility dog or qualified therapy dog to be present with a witness who is testifying before the court. The court may enter an order authorizing a qualified facility dog or qualified therapy dog to accompany a witness testifying at the court proceeding if: (1) the presence of the dog will assist the witness in providing testimony; and (2) the party petitioning for the order provides proof of liability insurance coverage in effect for the dog. A handler must accompany the qualified facility dog (as defined in the law). Statute
New Books

New Books

Randall S. Abate (editor), What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?  Environmental Law Institute (2015).

Basic page

Pages