Liotta v. Segur |
Not Reported in A.2d, 2004 WL 728829 (Conn.Super.), 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 621 (Conn.Super.,2004) |
|
|
In this unreported Connecticut case, a dog owner sued a groomer for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the groomer negligently handled her very large dog when he removed it from her vehicle with “excessive force.” This resulted in a leg fracture, that, after lengthy and expensive care, ultimately resulted in the dog's euthanization. The court held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a case for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but said in
dicta
that the results might be different for a pet owner who proves
intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Motion for summary judgment as against plaintiff's count two is granted.
|
Case |
TX - Service animals - § 434.029. Service Dog Pilot Program for Certain Veterans |
V.T.C.A., Government Code § 434.029 |
TX GOVT § 434.029 |
|
The commission by rule shall establish a pilot program for veterans to assist in mitigating the symptoms of military service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or military sexual trauma through the provision of a service dog. |
Statute |
Friends of Animals v. Ashe |
808 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir. 2015) |
2015 WL 9286948 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) |
|
Friends of Animals, a non-profit animal advocacy organization, filed suit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("the Service") in 2013, after the Service issued no initial or final determinations for 39 species of sturgeon the organization petitioned as endangered or threatened. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the Service must make a determination within 90 days for an initial determination or 12 months for a final determination after a petition is received from an interested party. However, there is also a provision in the ESA that the plaintiff must give the Service 60-days notice before filing suit. The District Court held that Friends of Animals did not give the Service adequate notice before filing suit and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, this court agreed, finding that Friends of Animals "did not wait until after the issuance of the positive initial determinations to provide 60 days' notice of the allegedly overdue final determinations." In dicta, the Court noted that "[t]he Service's approach may not be the most efficient," but the deadlines are mandatory in the statutes. Thus, its suit to compel the final determination on the listings was barred and the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. |
Case |
IN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws |
I.C. 15-17-6-1 - 14; 25-38.1-4-8 ; 15-20-2-1 - 7; 15-17-21-1; 6-9-39-1 - 9; 35-46-3-15; 15-20-3-1 - 4; 14-22-11-1; 14-8-2-89 |
IN ST 15-17-6-1 - 14; 25-38.1-4-8 ; 15-20-2-1 - 7; 6-9-39-1 - 9; 35-46-3-15; 15-20-3-1 - 4 ; 14-22-11-1; 14-8-2-89; 15-17-21-1 |
|
These Indiana statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Included are provisions on rabies, liability of owners for dog bites or damage to livestock, and taxation and registration laws, among others. |
Statute |
CO - Dangerous Dog- Article 9. Offenses Against Public Peace, Order, and Decency. |
C. R. S. A. § 18-9-204.5; C. R. S. A. § 35-42-115 |
CO ST § 18-9-204.5; CO ST § 35-42-115 |
|
This Colorado statute defines a "dangerous dog" as one that has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or domestic animal; or has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animal; or has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting as described by statute. Owners found guilty under the provisions will be subject to misdemeanor penalties if their dogs cause bodily injury or felonies if their dogs cause the death of a person. Section 35-42-115 mandates that the bureau create a a statewide dangerous dog registry consisting of a database of information concerning microchip types and placement by veterinarians and licensed shelters in dangerous dogs. |
Statute |
Derecho Animal Volume 5 Núm 2 |
|
|
|
Vol. 5 Núm. 2 (2014) | | Tabla de contenidos | | Editorial | | Los cocodrilos también lloran Teresa Giménez-Candela | |
Policy |
VA - Exotic Pets - Chapter 30. Definitions and Miscellaneous |
|
4 VA ADC 15-30-5 to 60 |
4 VAC 15-30-5 to 60 |
The following regulations implement Virginia's exotic pet laws. |
Administrative |
GA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws |
Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-4, § 16-6-6 |
GA ST § 16-12-4; § 16-6-6 |
|
This comprises Georgia's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the statute, "animal" does not include any fish or any pest that might be exterminated or removed. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals when he or she causes death or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act, an omission, or willful neglect. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, but subsequent convictions incur enhanced penalties. A person commits the offense of aggravated cruelty to animals when he or she knowingly and maliciously causes death or physical harm to an animal by rendering a part of such animal's body useless or by seriously disfiguring such animal. |
Statute |
CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 1. General Definitions |
West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 1 - 89.5 |
CA FISH & G § 1 - 89.5 |
|
This chapter includes the general definitions for the Fish and Game Code. |
Statute |
HABITANTES DE LA OROYA VS. PERÚ - Do not publiss yet |
Comunidad de La Oroya Vs. Perú |
Comunidad de La Oroya Vs. Perú |
|
|
Case |