Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James S. Cable, Plaintiff v. Burrows, Defendant |
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims. |
Pleading | ||
| AZ - Tucson - Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl (Article 1: In General § 4-3) | Tucson Code § 4-3 |
This Tucson ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to commit a crime of cruelty or neglect on an animal. Anyone found guilty of committing a crime of neglect of cruelty faces fines between $100 to $2,500, up to 6 months in jail or 3 years on probation, restitution for the victim, and may not be able to own or control an animal for up to 3 years. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Chile - Fishing - Ley 430, 1991 | Ley 430, 1991 | This is the general law of fisheries and aquaculture. It establishes the guidelines for the preservation of hydrological resources, extractive fishing activities, and research activities in terrestrial waters, sea beaches, inland waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and adjacent areas. This law also regulates transformation and processing fishing activities and storage, transportation, or commercialization of hydro-biological resources. | Statute | |
| Settle v. Commonwealth | 55 Va.App. 212, 685 S.E.2d 182 (Va.,2009) | 2009 WL 4030930 (Va.App.) |
The defendant-appellant, Charles E. Settle, Jr., was convicted of two counts of inadequate care by owner of companion animals and one count of dog at large under a county ordinance, after Fauquier County Sherriff's officers were dispatched to his home on multiple occasions over the course of one calendar year in response to animal noise and health and safety complaints from his neighbors. Consequently, all of the affected dogs were seized from Settle and relocated to local animal shelters. The trial court also declared three of the animals to be dangerous dogs pursuant to another county ordinance. The Court of Appeals of Virginia held that: (1) because the forfeiture of dogs was a civil matter the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was not the proper forum to decide the case; (2) that Settle failed to join the County as an indispensible party in the notice of appeal from conviction for the county ordinance violation; and (3) that the evidence was sufficient to identify Settle as the owner of the neglected companion animals. |
Case |
| TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 824.001 - 004; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0065; § 62.016 | TX HEALTH & S § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0065 ; § 62.016 | These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws. | Statute |
| NV - Hunting, exotics - 504.295. Prohibited acts; regulations; licenses; inapplicability to alternative livestock | N. R. S. 504.295 | NV ST 504.295 | Under this Nevada statute, unless otherwise provided by statute no person may possess any live wildlife unless he is licensed by the division to do so, capture live wildlife in this state to stock a commercial or noncommercial wildlife facility, or possess or release from confinement any mammal for the purposes of hunting. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to alternative livestock and products made therefrom. | Statute |
| CA - Emergency - § 1797.10. Emergency medical transport for police dog; pilot project; | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1797.10, § 1799.109 | Section 1799.109, first makes legislative findings on the importance of dogs and cats to Californians and that some first responder agencies have been providing stabilizing, life-saving emergency care to dogs and cats, which violates the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. This new law allows an emergency responder to provide basic first aid to dogs and cats to the extent that the provision of that care is not prohibited by the responder's employer. The responder is not subject to criminal prosecution under the prohibitions of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. Basic first aid includes things like administering oxygen, manually clearing an upper airway, controlling a hemorrhage with direct pressure, and bandaging to stop bleeding. This section does not impose a duty or obligation upon an emergency responder or any other person to transport or provide care to an injured pet or other domesticated animal during an emergency nor does it require emergency services through a 911 call for dogs or cats. | Statute | |
| Tulloch v. Melnychuk | 1998 CarswellAlta 573 |
In this case, the Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendants for trespass to chattels. She alleged that the Defendants shot her valuable dog. The Defendants countered that they were justified in shooting the dog since it was on their land chasing and worrying their cattle contrary to the Stray Animals Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-23, Part 3. Here, the court found credible the testimony from the defendant cow-operator that the dog was chasing a lame cow to the point where the cow was exhausted. The action by plaintiff was dismissed. |
Case | |
| Hauser v. Ventura County Board of Supervisors | 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 (Cal. Ct. App., 2018) | 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018), 2018 WL 94788718 (Cal. Ct. App., 2018) | The plaintiff in this case applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to keep up to five tigers on her property, but the county planning commission and board of supervisors denied her application. In her application, plaintiff indicates that the project would include three tiger enclosures, a 13,500-square-foot arena with a roof over 14 feet in height at its highest point, with the area surrounded by an eight-foot-high chain link fence encompassing over seven acres. The captive tigers would be used in the entertainment industry: movie sets, television commercials, and still photography. In denying the application, the Board found that the plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary for a CUP: the project is compatible with the planned uses in the general area, and the project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. The court noted that plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating her entitlement to the permit. In fact, the court noted that while plaintiff claims "an unblemished safety record," she submitted videos showing tigers "roaming freely in the backyard of her Beverly Hills home" and tigers posing with plaintiff and her sister on the beach. The court observed that, "[h]er well-intentioned desire to own [the tigers] does not trump her neighbors' right to safety and peace of mind." The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. | Case |
| Newport v. Moran | 721 P.2d 465 (Or.App.,1986) | 80 Or.App. 71 (Or.App.,1986) |
In this Oregon case, an action was brought to recover damages for injuries after defendant's dog ran into plaintiff and knocked her down. The lower court entered a verdict against the defendant and she appealed. The Court of Appeals held that, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was find no evidence that would put defendant on notice that the dog had a potentially dangerous propensity to run into people. Further, without some reason to foresee that the dog was likely to run into people, there was no common-law duty to confine the dog. The evidence also did not warrant submission of the case to the jury on the theory of negligence per se for violation of the dog control ordinance because this risk was not one anticipated by the ordinance. Reversed. |
Case |