Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson v. State (Unpublished) | 877 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. App. 2007) |
After shooting a pet dog to prevent harm to Defendant's own dog, Defendant challenges his animal cruelty conviction. Defendant argues that since he was attempting to kill the dog, he did not intend to torture or mutilate the dog within the meaning of the statute. The court affirms his conviction, reasoning that the evidentiary record below supported his conviction. |
Case | ||
| Chile - Slaughter - Ley 21.3016 | Ley 21.3016 | This law modifies Law No. 19.162, increasing sanctions for violations of animal health regulations in slaughterhouses, and information falsification in the livestock and meat traceability system. This law increases monetary fees from 100 monthly tax units (UTM) to 500 UTM. In addition it adds a paragraph to artiicle 8 of Law No. 19.162 stating the following: "The person who, in an export process, incurs violations of this law related to animal health or traceability will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units and with the confiscation of the products. Additionally, they will be sanctioned with the prohibition of export between three to five years. In case of recidivism within the five years following the end of the prohibition, the conduct will be sanctioned with the perpetual prohibition to export. In the case of a legal person, the same sanction will fall on the natural person or persons controlling the said company and the other companies they control." | Statute | ||
| Larsen v. McDonald | 212 N.W.2d 505 | 1973 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1169 | In this case twelve neighbors brought a private nuisance claim against another neighbor for keeping numerous dogs in a residential area. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald rescued unwanted dogs by keeping them on their property; Ms. McDonald provided food and shelter and attempted to place the animals in new adoptive homes. At the time of trial there were 40 dogs on the property. The neighbors had called the police and complained of frequent barking and the smell of urine. The McDonalds argue that they had priority of location over the defendants. When they moved to the neighborhood in 1952 it had been sparsely settled. However, over the years the neighborhood had become residential, and while many of the neighbors also had dogs, none of them exceeded three dogs. Ultimately the court held that for the McDonalds to be operating a shelter or kennel style facility was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, and after reviewing the testimony, the evidence in this case was sufficient to show a normal person would find the situation was a nuisance. The court upheld the lower court’s injunction to limit the number of dogs that the McDonalds could keep. | Case | |
| Drinkhouse v. Van Ness | 260 P. 869 (1935) | 202 Cal. 359 (1935) |
Plaintiffs sued defendants to recover value of a horse that was wrongfully taken from them. The Court held that evidence was admissible to establish the value of the horse at the time of the wrongful taking to fix the damages amount. The peculiar value of the horse as a sire was established by evidence as to the horse’s racing history and to its progeny’s character and racing ability. Owners were entitled to recover damages for the reasonable value of the horse’s use during the period they were wrongfully deprived of it. |
Case | |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Dog Law | SS 2005, c M-36.1, 374-380 | This set of Saskatchewan, Canada laws comprises the Dangerous Dog laws. | Statute | ||
| OH - Lakewood - Breed - 506.03 PIT BULL DOGS OR CANARY DOGS | LAKEWOOD, OH., ORDINANCES § 506.03 (2008) |
No person may keep, harbor or own pit bull dogs or canary dogs in Lakewood, Ohio, with exceptions for dogs in the city on the effective date. A dog may be allowed to stay provided it has a microchip for identification, has been sterilized, the owner has liability insurance of $100,000, and the dog is properly confined or secured. Failure to comply could result in the removal or impoundment of the dog. The owner may also be charged with a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Levy v. Only Cremations for Pets, Inc. | 271 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250 (2020) | 57 Cal.App.5th 203 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2020) | This case was brought by the owners of two dogs that were cremated by a private pet cremation company, who allege the cremation service sent them the ashes of random dogs instead of those of their dogs. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract and several tort claims, including trespass to chattel and negligence. On this appeal, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The plaintiffs failed to establish an implied contract between them and the pet cremation company, were granted leave to amend their breach of contract complaint against the company, the other actions for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed, and the court found that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for negligence. | Case | |
| US - Permits - Subpart D. Conditions. § 13.42 Permits are specific. | 67 FR 12824 | 50 C.F.R. § 13.42 | This regulation provides that permits issued to collect or otherwise take wildlife or plants are strictly construed. | Administrative | |
| Dias v. City and County of Denver | 567 F.3d 1169 (C.A.10 (Colo.),2009) | 2009 WL 1490359 (C.A.10 (Colo.)) |
The Tenth Circuit took up a challenge to Denver's breed-specific ban against pitbull dogs. The plaintiffs, former residents of Denver, contended the ban is unconstitutionally vague on its face and deprives them of substantive due process. The district court dismissed both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) before plaintiffs presented evidence to support their claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by prematurely dismissing the case at the 12(b)(6) stage. The Tenth Circuit agreed in part, finding that while the plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective relief for either claim because they have not shown a credible threat of future prosecution, taking the factual allegations in the complaint as true the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the pit bull ban is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. |
Case | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 4 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. IV (2008)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy |