Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huff v. Dyer | 297 Ga.App. 761, 678 S.E.2d 206 (Ga.App.,2009) | 2009 WL 1299046 (Ga.App.), 09 FCDR 1707 |
In this Georgia case, the plaintiff was injured from being bitten by defendants' dog who was chained to the bed of their pickup truck while the defendants were inside an adjacent restaurant. The plaintiff sued defendants, claiming that they failed to warn her of their dog's dangerous propensities and that they committed negligence per se by violating the state's strict liability statute (OCGA § 51-2-7) and the Hall County Animal Control Ordinance. A jury found in favor of the defendants. The court found that the evidence was therefore more than sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that defendants' dog was “under restraint” for purposes of the ordinance. Further, there was no evidence that the owners had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity. Affirmed. |
Case |
| KS - Rehabilitation - 32-953. Rehabilitation permit | K. S. A. 32-953 | KS ST 32-953 | This Kansas law states that a rehabilitation permit is required to perform wildlife rehabilitation services. | Statute |
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | |
| WV - Pet Trust - § 44D-4-408. Trust for care of animal | W. Va. Code, § 44D-1-110; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-408; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-409 | WV ST § 44D-1-110; WV ST § 44D-4-408; WV ST § 44D-4-409 | These West Virginia statutes regulate trusts for the care of animals. A pet trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the grantor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal. Property of a trust may be applied only to its intended use. A trust may be enforced by a person appointed in the terms of the trust instrument or by a person appointed by the court. | Statute |
| SC - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Code 1976 § 47-1-10 - 225; Code 1976 § 16-15-120 | SC ST § 47-1-10 - 225; SC ST § 16-15-120 | This South Carolina subsection comprises the state's anti-cruelty laws. The term "animal" under this subchapter includes all living vertebrate creatures except homo sapiens (but see the exclusion section where fowl are specifically excluded). Animal cruelty occurs when a person knowingly or intentionally overloads, overdrives, overworks, ill-treats any animal, deprives any animal of necessary sustenance or shelter, inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering upon any animal, or by omission or commission knowingly or intentionally causes these things to be done. The statute also has a felony provision for the torture, tormenting, needless mutilation, cruel killing, or infliction of excessive or repeated unnecessary pain. | Statute |
| Com. v. Erickson | 905 N.E.2d 127 (Mass.App.Ct.,2009) | 74 Mass.App.Ct. 172 (Mass.App.Ct.,2009) |
In this Massachusetts case, the defendant was found guilty of six counts of animal cruelty involving one dog and five cats after a bench trial. On appeal, defendant challenged the warrantless entry into her apartment and argued that the judge erred when he failed to grant her motion to suppress the evidence gathered in the search. The Court of Appeals found no error where the search was justified under the "emergency exception" to the warrant requirement. The court found that the officer was justified to enter where the smell emanating from the apartment led him to believe that someone might be dead inside. The court was not persuaded by defendant's argument that, once the officer saw the dog feces covering the apartment that was the source of the smell, it was then objectively unreasonable for him to conclude the smell was caused by a dead body. "The argument ignores the reality that there were in fact dead bodies in the apartment, not merely dog feces, to say nothing of the additional odor caused by the blood, cat urine, and cat feces that were also found." |
Case |
| Ray and Marie Powers v. Wesley and Mary Tincher |
While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance. |
Pleading | ||
| 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 |
| Barrington v. Colbert | CO/1273/97 |
A net was placed over one opening of a land drain and a terrier dog sent into the other entrance with the objective of prompting a fox to run into the net. Magistrates acquitted the defendants of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the fox contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a). The Divisional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, holding that, applying Rowley v Murphy [1964] 2 QB 43, the fox was not a "captive animal" within the meaning of s 15(c) of the 1911 Act, mere confinement not being sufficient, and was therefore outside the protection of that Act. |
Case | |
| NY - Police dog - § 122-c. Transport of police work dogs injured in the line of duty | McKinney's General Municipal Law § 122-c | NY GEN MUN § 122-c | This New York law from 2015 states that an emergency medical service paramedic or emergency medical service technician may transport any police work dog injured in the line of duty to a veterinary clinic or similar such facility provided, however, that there are no persons requiring medical attention or transport at such time. | Statute |