Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barger v. Jimerson | 276 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1954) | 130 Colo. 459 (1954) |
In order for liability to attach in an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from a dog attack, defendants had to have notice of the vicious propensities of their dog. Even though the dog had never attacked a person before, a natural fierceness or disposition to mischief was sufficient to classify the dog as "vicious." Finally, it is permissible for the jury to consider the loss of earning capacity of plaintiff resulting from the injuries as an element of damages. |
Case |
| Colombia, Resolución 8430, 1993 | Resolución 8430, 1993 | Resolution 8430, 1993 of the Colombian Ministry of Health, establishes scientific, technical, and administrative norms for investigation in the health field. Title V of this resolution regulates the biomedical research on animals. | Statute | |
| VT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 44. Veterinary Medicine. | 26 V.S.A. § 2401 - 2433 | VT ST T. 26 § 2401- 2433 | 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 |
| Germany - Cruelty - German Animal Welfare Act | Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1094 |
This is the primary piece of animal welfare legislation in Germany. It enforces the utilitarian principle that there must be good reason for one to cause an animal harm and identifies that it is the responsibility of human beings to protect the lives and well-being of their fellow creatures. For a discussion on the German Animal Welfare Act as compared to other European and United States animal welfare laws, see Detailed Discussion. |
Statute | |
| RI - Pawtucket - Breed - § 116-37. Registration of Rottweilers required; § 116-37.1 Pit bulls prohibited | PAWTUCKET, R.I., CODIFIED ORDINANCES § 116-37; § 116-37.1 (2003) |
In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull dog. Exceptions are made for animal shelters, dog shows, and dogs that have been previously registered and licensed. In the last case, the owner must be at least 21 years of age, keep liability insurance of at least $100,000, have the dog sterilized, keep the dog properly confined, and post a "PIT BULL DOG" sign. A violation may result in a fine ($500 - $1,000) and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The dog may also be impounded and/or destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Resources | 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981) |
The action alleged that defendants, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and chairman, violated the Endangered Species Act by maintaining feral sheep and goats in an endangered bird's critical habitat. Defendant had maintained feral sheep and goats within the critical habitat of the endangered palila bird. The practice degraded the bird's habitat. The court upheld summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that maintenance of the herd constituted a taking under the Act. |
Case | |
| State v. Graves | Slip Copy, 2017 WL 3129373 (Ohio Ct. App., 2017) | 2017 -Ohio- 6942 | In this Ohio case, defendant Graves appeals his misdemeanor cruelty to animals conviction under R.C. 959.13(A)(3). The conviction stems from an incident in 2016 where Graves left his dog in locked and sealed van while he went into a grocery store. According to the facts, the van was turned off in an unshaded spot with windows closed on a 90+ degree day. Witnesses at the scene called police after they engaged in an unsuccessful attempt to get defendant to leave the store. In total, the dog spent about 40-45 minutes locked in the van. Graves was issued a citation for cruelty to animals and later convicted at a bench trial. On appeal, Graves first asserts that R.C. 959.13(A)(3) is unconstitutional because the statute is void for vagueness as applied to him and overbroad. This court found that the definition of cruelty was not so unclear that it could not be reasonably understood by Graves. The court was unconvinced by appellant's arguments that the statute provided insufficient guidance to citizens, and left open relevant question such as length of time a dog can be left unattended, exact weather conditions, and issues of the size of dogs left in vehicles. The court noted that most statutes deal with "unforeseen circumstances" and do not spell out details with "scientific precision." In fact, the court noted "[t]he danger of leaving an animal locked in a sealed vehicle in hot and humid conditions is well-known." Additionally, the court did not find the law to be overbroad, as defendant's right to travel was not infringed by the law. Finally, defendant contends that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In rejecting this argument, the court found Graves acted recklessly under the law based on the hot and humid weather conditions and the fact that humans outside the van were experiencing the effects of extreme heat. Thus, the lower court's judgment was affirmed. | Case |
| TN - Hunting - Part 3. Hunter Protection Act. | T. C. A. § 70-4-301 - 303 | TN ST § 70-4-301 - 303 | This section represents Tennessee's "Hunter Protection Act." The law makes it a Class C misdemeanor to interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal by another with the intent to prevent the taking; disturb or engage in an activity that will tend to disturb a wild animal, with the intent to prevent the lawful taking; disturb a person engaged in lawful hunting with the intent to prevent the taking; enter or remain on land with intent to violate this section; fail to obey a peace officer's orders to desist from conduct in violation of this section; or use a drone with the intent to conduct video surveillance of private citizens who are lawfully hunting or fishing without obtaining the written consent of the persons being surveilled. A person affected by conduct in violation of this section may seek an injunction or recover damages, including punitive damages. | Statute |
| NE - Swap Meets - (i) Exotic Animal Auctions and Swap Meets | Neb.Rev.St. 54-7,105 - 110 | NE ST § 54-7,105 - 110 | This law requires exotic animal auction or exchange venue organizers to maintain records in order to track animal diseases. | Statute |
| CA - Historical - General Laws of 1913: Title 14: Section 596-599f | Cal. Penal Code §§ 597 - 599f (1913) | The General Laws of California from 1913, title 14, covers Malicious Mischief which includes sections concerning: Cruelty to Animals, Poisoning of Cattle, killing of birds in cemeteries and killing of gulls or cranes. The Cruelty to Animal section describes laws concerning horses, abandoned animal, torture and maiming of animals, use of animals in fights, and arrest without warrants. In addition, the section covers evidence, stallions, and impounding without food and water. The section about the killing of birds in the cemetery concerns also killing and detaining of homing pigeons. The last section about killing of gulls and cranes also concerns the destruction of eggs and nests. In addition, the section covers killing of elk and prosecution for these offenses. | Statute |