Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WATSON | 208 Ala. 319 (1922) | 94 So. 551 (Ala., 1922) |
On November 2, 1920, on a “moonlit night”, plaintiff was fox hunting by a railroad track when his dog was hit by the train. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s employee negligently ran over his dog while acting within the scope of his duties as an operator of the train. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury award of $50, and held that it was proper for the plaintiff to show the excellent hunting qualities displayed by this dog to determine its market value. |
Case | |
| Carter v. Metro North Assocs. | 680 N.Y.S.2d 239, 240 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) | 255 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) | In this case, a tenant sued her landlord for injuries sustained when the tenant was bitten on the face by a pit bull owned by another tenant. The court held that before a pet owner, or the landlord of the building in which the pet lives, may be held strictly liable for an injury inflicted by the animal, the plaintiff must establish both (1) that the animal had vicious propensities and (2) that the defendant knew or should have known of the animal's propensities. In this case, there was no evidence that the pit bull had vicious propensities, nor did any of the evidence support a finding that the landlord had, or should have had, knowledge of any such propensities. The appellate court found the lower court erred when it took "judicial notice of the vicious nature of the breed as a whole." The court noted that there are alternate opinions and evidence that preclude taking judicial notice that pit bulls are inherently vicious as a breed. The trial court order was reversed, judgment for plaintiff vacated, and complaint dismissed. | Case | |
| CA - Research Animals - Chapter 5. Regulation of Use of Animals in Diagnostic Procedures and Medical Research | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1650 - 1677 | CA HLTH & S § 1650 - 1677 | This section regulates the use of animals in medical research. The California Department of Health Services is directed to make rules and regulations providing for satisfactory shelter, food, sanitation, record keeping, and for the humane treatment of animals by persons authorized by the board to raise, keep or to use animals medical research. The department is also authorized to inspect any premises where animals used for the purposes of this section are kept. Violations constitute a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 | The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA) is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Australia. POCTAA establishes certain acts or omissions as offences and also provides defences to a charge under the Act in certain circumstances. POCTAA prohibits cruelty and aggravated cruelty generally, as well as a number of other types of activities, including neglect, confinement, abandonment, failure to act in certain circumstances, some transport-related activities, inappropriate use, mutilation, poisoning, torture, fighting and baiting, certain hunting and trapping related activities, selling severely injured animals and failing to take action where an animal is injured by a vehicle. | Statute | ||
| NM - Exotic Pets - 19.35.7. Importation of Live Nondomestic Animals Birds and Fish | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.7.1 - 23 | NM ADC 19.35.7.1 - 23 | This regulation covers persons who desire to bring wildlife species into the state of New Mexico. It may include the general public, pet importers, holders of Class A park licenses, department permitees and others. The stated objective is, "[t]o provide consistent criteria for the importation of live non-domesticated animals into New Mexico and to protect native wildlife against the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases, undesirable species and address human health and safety issues." | Administrative | |
| Mack v. State of Texas (unpublished) | 2003 WL 23015101 (Not Reported in S.W.3d) |
The Texas Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's decision that failure to adequately provide for cattle such that they suffered from malnourishment constituted animal cruelty offense under Texas law. The court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that malnourished cow was one of the many domesticated living creatures on defendant's ranch, and was therefore an “animal” under the state law. |
Case | ||
| CA - Restaurant - § 114259.5. Live animals | West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 114259.5 | CA HLTH & S § 114259.5 | In 2014, California added amendments to its law on "Live Animals" in the Retail Food Code related to pet dogs in outdoor dining areas. If a food establishment owner allows it, patrons may bring their pet dogs to an outdoor dining area if requirements are met. Like other states, there must be an outdoor entrance, employees must wash hands if they touch the dogs, dogs must be leashed and under control, pet waste must be properly dealt with, and "food and water provided to pet dogs shall only be in single-use disposable containers." This last provision is interesting because it considers the needs of the canine customers. | Statute | |
| AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs | AS § 03.55.070 | AK ST § 03.55.070 | This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village. | Statute | |
| Anays Rodriguez-Porras, Plaintiff v. Miami-Dade Animal Services, Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County, Defendants |
This Miami-Dade County, Florida case concerns the unauthorized euthanization of the plaintiff's dog, "Cowboy." Cowboy was a beloved family pet who was fitted with an identification microchip in case he was ever lost. In August of 2005, Cowboy got loose after being frightened by a storm and picked up by an animal shelter officer. The plaintiff was inaccurately informed that no dog matching Cowboy's description was at the shelter (records from the shelter showed he was actually picked up the same day he escaped from his home). Five days later, she was informed that Cowboy was at the shelter. After telling the shelter she would be there the next day to pick up Cowboy (since the shelter was closing and would not wait for her to arrive), the shelter euthanized the dog despite assurances to plaintiff that he would be kept safe. Plaintiff sued animal control, the county, and police department for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, wrongful disposition of a body, and negligence. |
Pleading | |||
| Humane Society-Western Region v. Snohomish County | 2007 WL 2404619 (W.D. Wash) |
Plaintiff Humane Society Western Region (d/b/a "Happy Paws Farm") filed this lawsuit against Snohomish County alleging provisions of the county code regulating barking are unconstitutionally vague in violation of the state and federal constitutions, and that the SCC provision governing the temporary housing of animals in shelters violates its federal constitutional right to substantive due process. Plaintiff argued that the noise ordinances invite subjective evaluation resulting in arbitrary enforcement because the code contains no reference to identifiable levels of noise, only to noises that are repetitive. The absence of identifiable levels of noise, or decibel levels, does not render the noise ordinances unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that this method is not easily understood by individuals of ordinary intelligence or that it fails to protect against arbitrary enforcement. This opinion was Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part by Humane Society Western Region v. Snohomish County, 357 Fed.Appx. 144 (9th Cir., 2009). |
Case |