Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. v. McConkey | 2008 CarswellAlta 156 | 2008 ABPC 37, [2008] A.W.L.D. 3238, 438 A.R. 87 |
In this case, the defendants pleaded guilty to violations of the Animal Protection Act after a peace officer for the humane society found four dogs in distress due mainly to a lack of grooming. On appeal, the defendants did not contest the amount of the fines, but suggested that the court should consider the economic status of the defendants (both were on government assistance). The court found that the conduct of the defendant and the level of the distress experienced by the dogs over a long period of time was an aggravating factor in determining the fine. With regard to a Section 12(2) prohibition to restrain future animal ownership, the court was reluctant to inflict stress on the animals still residing at the home by removing them from their long-time home. |
Case | |
| Hood River County v. Mazzara | 89 P.3d1195 (Or. 2004) | 193 Or.App. 272 (2004) |
In this Oregon case, the defendant appealed a conviction for violating Hood River County Ordinances (HRCO) under which the owner of a dog may not allow it "to become a public nuisance * * * " by "[d]isturb[ing] any person by frequent or prolonged noises[.]" (Her dog was reported to have barked for six straight hours.) The defendant argued that the ordinances are invalid as applied to her because ORS 30.935 immunizes farm practices from the application of local government ordinances. The defendant operated a farm with a herd of 60 cashmere and angora goats on land that bordered a national forest and used her dogs to keep predators at bay. The Court of Appeals noted that once defendant raised the defense of the right to farm practice, the county had the burden of disproving it, which it failed to do. Further, the trial court erred by disregarding uncontested facts that established defendant's immunity. |
Case | |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | WASH. ADMIN. CODE §16-54-030 | WAC 16-54-030 | Washington requires health certificates for the importation of most animals into the state. | Administrative | |
| Wallen v. City of Mobile | --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3803749 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2018) | Wallen appeals her convictions for six counts of violating Mobile, Alabama's public nuisance ordinances. The nuisance convictions stem from an anonymous complaint about multiple barking dogs at Wallen's property. After receiving the tip in March of 2016, an animal control officer drove to the residence, parked across the street, and, as he sat in his car, heard dogs bark continuously for approximately ten minutes. That same day, a local realtor went to house that was for sale behind Wallen's property and heard an "overwhelming" noise of dogs barking continuously for 30-45 minutes. For almost a year, officers received complaints about noise coming from Wallen's house. In May of 2017, Wallen entered a plea of not guilty for multiple charges of violating the public nuisance ordinance in Mobile Circuit Court. She also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Mobile City Code was unconstitutionally vague. Her motion was later denied, and a jury trial was held where Wallen was found guilty of six counts of violating Mobile's public-nuisance ordinance. On appeal, Wallen first argues that the public nuisance ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it regulates without reference to time, place, and manner. However, the court found that Wallen did not establish how the overbreadth doctrine applied to her case and how the ordinance was unconstitutional. As to her next vagueness challenge, Wallen contended that the ordinance had no objective standards to determine whether a dog's barking is disturbing or unreasonable. This court disagreed, finding the statute defines what are "disturbing noises" (which specifically states barking), and other courts previously established that the term "habit" in a dog-barking statute is not vague. Finally, the found that Wallen's last general argument, that the code is unconstitutional as applied to her, did not satisfy court rules with respect to issues presented and support with authority on appeal. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. | Case | ||
| In re Marriage of Piskalns | Unpublished Disposition, 344 Mont. 555, 186 P.3d 877 (Table) (2008) | 2008 WL 2441361 | The parties both appealed from the district court’s orders distributing the marital estate upon the parties’ divorce. Kara Pilskalns claimed that the court erred when it granted ownership of Maggie, the couple’s dog, to Andrew Pilskalns. This court affirms the decision, declining to use the best interest of the child standard for the distribution of pets as they are marital property. | Case | |
| NY - Impound - Article 5. Powers, Limitations, and Liabilities. | McKinney's General Municipal Law § 88 | NY GEN MUN § 88 | This New York statute provides that a municipality may by local law or ordinance provide that stray or unwanted dogs be given to an agency which trains seeing eye dogs or to a police department which trains dogs as guards. These agencies can requisition dogs that are awaiting destruction so long as five days have elapsed since the dog was impounded. Licensed dogs surrendered to the municipality or an animal shelter shall not be requisitioned without the written consent of the owner obtained at the time of the surrender. | Statute | |
| MI - Fish & Wildlife, Generally Powers - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.501 - 507 | MI ST 324.501 - 507 | These sections lay out the creation, jurisdiction, powers and duties of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. | Statute | |
| Pickford v. Masion | 98 P.3d 1232 (Wa. 2004) | 98 P.3d 1232 (Wa. 2004) |
Plaintiffs' dog was mauled by Defendants' dogs and sustained permanent injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs' claims of negligent and malicious infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment and further held the destruction of the companionship relationship could not be extended to dogs. |
Case | |
| Brousseau v. Rosenthal | 443 N.Y.S.2d 285 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct., 1980) | 110 Misc.2d 1054 (1980) |
This small claims action presents the question of how to make plaintiff whole in dollars for the defendant bailee's (a boarding kennel) negligence in causing the death of plaintiff's dog. While the dog was a gift and a mixed breed and thus had no ascertainable market value, the court contravened common law principles and assessed the dog's actual value to the owner in order to make the owner whole. While resisting the temptation to romanticize the virtues of a "human's best friend," the court stated it would be wrong not to acknowledge the companionship and protection that Ms. Brousseau lost with the death of her canine companion of eight years. |
Case | |
| US - Slaughter - Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food | 2007 WL 2010444 (F.R.) | 72 FR 38700-01 (2007) |
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is affirming, with changes, the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Cattle," which was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2004. The Agency is also affirming the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Certain Stunning Devices Used to Immobilize Cattle During Slaughter," also published on January 12, 2004. FSIS issued these interim final rules in response to the confirmation on December 23, 2003, of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an imported dairy cow in Washington State. FSIS is taking this action to make permanent interim measures implemented by the Agency to minimize human exposure to cattle materials that could potentially contain the BSE agent. |
Administrative |