Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bates v. Constable | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) |
A son obtained a dog from defendant for his father to have as a pet. The dog bit the father and the father sued defendant for failing to warn him of the dog's vicious propensities. The Court held the defendant did not owe the second transferee of the dog a duty to warn and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. |
Case |
| US - Whales - Chapter 14A. Whale Conservation and Protection. | 16 U.S.C.A. § 917 - 917d | These statutes extended federal authority and responsibility over the conservation and protection of all mammals including certain species of whales. The statutes also granted the Secretary of Commerce with authority to complete a comprehensive study of all whales in an effort to conserve and protect them effectively. | Statute | |
| DE - Hunting, Internet - § 704(h). Prohibited hunting and trapping devices and methods; confiscation of devices; primitive weapon season | 7 Del.C. § 704 | Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, § 704 (West) | Section (h) of this Delaware law on prohibited hunting methods prohibits "Internet hunting." Under the law, no person shall operate, provide, sell, use, or offer to operate, provide, sell, or use any computer software or service that allows a person not physically present at a hunt site to remotely control a weapon that could be used to take a live animal or bird by remote operation, including, but not limited to, weapons or devices set up to fire through the use of the Internet or through a remote control device. The statute also regulates trapping. Per the law, no person shall make use of any pitfall, deadfall, scaffold, cage, snare, trap, net, pen, baited hook, lure, urine or baited field or any other similar device for the purpose of injuring, capturing or killing birds or animals protected by the laws of this State, except as otherwise specified. | Statute |
| Zalaski v. City of Hartford | 723 F.3d 382 (C.A.2 (Conn.)) | 2013 WL 3796448 (C.A.2 (Conn.)) |
When animal rights activists, who were protesting the treatment of animals at a race sponsored by a circus, were arrested for criminal trespass and obstruction of free passage, the filed a section 1983 lawsuit for false arrest, unlawful retaliation, malicious prosecution, and interference with free expression under both the U.S. and Connecticut constitution against the city and the officer. Upon appeal of the lower court’s rejection of the activists’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court (1) affirmed the lower court’s decision on the ground of qualified immunity under section 1983, (2) would not address whether a pro se attorney who represented plaintiffs in addition to himself may be awarded fees because the issue was not raised in district court, and (3) vacated the judgment only in order to remand the case for the limited purpose of having the district court clarify whether it awarded the activists the costs incurred as a result of a discovery certification violation. |
Case |
| NE - Veterinary - Article 33. Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act | Neb.Rev.St. § 38-3301 to 38- 3335 | NE ST § 38-3301 to 38- 3335 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| LA - Dog Bite - Art. 2321. Damage caused by animals. | LA C.C. Art. 2321 | This Louisiana civil code statute provides that an owner of any animal is liable for damages caused by that animal only upon a showing that he or she knew or should have known that his or her animal's behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he or she failed to exercise such reasonable care. However, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation of the dog. | Statute | |
| Ruiz v. Franklin County Animal Control | 732 S.E.2d 393 (Table), 2012 WL 4510934 (N.C.App.) (unpublished) |
This North Carolina case is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment in favor of Franklin County Animal Control. Defendants argue that the trial court erred by declining to enter summary judgment in their favor on the basis of governmental immunity. The appellate court agreed, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded for an entry of summary judgment for defendants. The court found that there is no dispute in the record that Franklin County Animal Control and Stallings, in his official capacity as an Animal Control Officer, were performing a governmental function in impounding and euthanizing plaintiff's dog. Further, plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that defendants waived governmental immunity, subjecting her action to dismissal. |
Case | |
| TN - Cruelty, reporting - Part 4. Cross Reporting of Animal Cruelty | T. C. A. § 38-1-401 - 403 | Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-1-402 - 403 | This Tennessee statute requires employees of child or adult protective service agencies to report animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect that they know or reasonably suspect to have occurred in their county. The statute also describes the amount of time that an employee may have to make a report and ensures the confidentiality of the employee. The statute also makes clear that it does not impose a duty on the employee to investigate known or reasonably suspected animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect. | Statute |
| Carroll v. Cnty. of Monroe | 712 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2013) | The Plaintiff-Appellant appeals a decision/order by the lower court to deny her motion to set aside the jury verdict or grant a new trial. At the original trial, a jury found plaintiff failed to prove her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the shooting of her dog during the execution of a search warrant was an unconstitutional seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff's dog was shot during a "no-knock" search warrant at plaintiff's residence, but the warrant team was aware that a dog would be present during the search. On appeal, this court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial because she failed to provide any “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to show that the jury would find in her favor. The court believed that it was unlikely that a jury would find in her favor because of the fact that the dog was killed during a “no-knock” search of the home and the dog “quickly and aggressively” ran towards the police officer after he entered the home. Although the court agreed that the officers should have advised a plan to deal with the dog in a non-lethal way, it maintained that a jury would unlikely find that the officer’s use of force was unreasonable given the circumstances of this case. Affirmed. | Case | |
| MN - Ordinances - 366.01.Chapter 366. Town Board; Board of Audit. Town Board. | M. S. A. § 366.01 | MN ST § 366.01 | This Minnesota statute provides that the supervisors of each town constituting a town board are empowered to license and regulate the presence or keeping of dogs or domestic animal pets when deemed to be in the public interest. | Statute |