Results
Displaying 5851 - 5860 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ridley v. Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. | 932 N.W.2d 576 (S.D., 2019) | 2019 S.D. 48 | Plaintiff Ridley was walking at a campground where she was attacked and injured by a pit bull type dog belonging to Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. (SEPR) and in the care of Susan Tribble-Zacher and Harry Podhradsky. At the time, the dog was tethered to a tree near the Zacher and Podhradsky campsite. SEPR functions as a pit bull fostering organization that takes pit bulls from situations of abuse and neglect and places them with foster providers until a permanent home can be found. The lower court granted both Zacher's and Podhradsky's motions for summary judgment, which Ridley appeals in this instant case. On appeal, Ridley claims the trial court erred by incorrectly weighing the evidence by viewing the facts in a light most favorable to SEPR instead of plaintiff. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis that the injury to Ridley was not foreseeable. The court rejected Ridley's argument that pit bull type dogs have inherently dangerous breed tendencies and, as a result, the attack was foreseeable and the keepers should be held to a higher standard of care. The court noted that South Dakota law does not support any "breed-specific standard of care," and that every dog is presumed tame so that the burden is on a plaintiff to prove otherwise. The dog who attacked Ridley had no prior history of aggression toward humans to make the attack on Ridley foreseeable. In addition, the fact that Zacher and Podhradsky may have violated a policy by SEPR to keep the dog in a two-week "shutdown period," where the dog would not travel outside the home, did not make it foreseeable that the dog would attack Ridley. Thus, the defendants did not breach their duty of reasonable care toward Ridley. The motions for summary judgment were affirmed. | Case |
| CA - Dog Fighting - § 597.5. Fighting dogs; felony; punishment; spectators; exceptions | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.5 | CA PENAL § 597.5 | This California statute provides that it is a felony to own, possess, keep, or train any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog, or to cause dogs to fight for the purpose of amusement or gain. Knowingly being a spectator at such an event constitutes a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Canada - Alberta - Dangerous Dogs Act | R.S.A. 2000, c. D-3, s. 1 | This set of laws comprises the Alberta, Canada Dangerous Dog Act. Under the Act, a justice may take a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person, or that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control. In either circumstance, if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. Additionally, a person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order. | Statute | |
| Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc. | 577 F.Supp.2d 82 (D.D.C., 2008) | 2008 WL 4148500 (D.D.C.) |
In relevant part, the District of Columbia’s Freedom from Cruelty to Animal Protection Act allows any humane officer to take possession of any animal to protect the animal(s) from neglect or cruelty. Plaintiffs, all of whom had their dogs seized under the Act, brought a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition for a count alleging that the Act is unconstitutional on its face and as customarily enforced. The United States District Court, District of Columbia, denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, finding the parties’ briefs in connection to the motion insufficient to determine whether an issue exists as to the Act‘s constitutionality. |
Case |
| United States v. Hardman | 260 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2001) |
This is an order vacating the opinions issued in Wilgus , Saenz , and Hardman . The Tenth Circuit requested the attorneys in the above cases to brief the issues outlined by the court. For further discussion regarding religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| State v. Fockler | 480 P.3d 960 (Or.App., 2021) | 308 Or.App. 765 (Or.App., 2021) | Defendant appeals his conviction of animal abuse in the second degree (ORS 167.315). Neighbors witnessed him throwing his dog to the ground and called police. He argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he previously threw a cat to the ground 13-years prior to the current incident and submission of this evidence created unfair prejudice. The prosecution contended that this evidence was admitted for a noncharacter/nonpropsensity purpose under OEC 404(3) to establish defendant's subjective awareness of the risk of throwing pets the ground. On appeal, this court noted that animal abuse in the second degree requires the state to prove that defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” At trial, the state introduced evidence that, in 2003, defendant threw a cat of his apartment window causing injury to the cat because it had defecated on the apartment floor. Defendant argued that there was an insufficient connection between the cat throwing incident and the current charge, and that the probative value of the evidence was at "best minimalistic." However, this court found that the cat throwing evidence was offered for a nonpropensity purpose of knowledge where it was reasonable to infer that defendant had a subjective awareness of the risks in throwing a pet to the ground. Therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that the evidence was relevant for the noncharacter purpose of establishing knowledge under OEC 404(3). The appellate court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence after hearing both sides and weighing the appropriate factors. Affirmed. | Case |
| OR - Initiatives - Oregon Initiative 97 (Bans Body-Gripping Animal Traps) | Initiative 97 (2000) (failed) | This 2000 Oregon initiative would have eliminated the use of steel-jawed, leghold or other body-gripping traps and poisons. It was defeated by voters, 58.5% to 41.2%. | Statute | |
| Web site support - Styles | Basic page | |||
| AL - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | Ala.Code 1975 § § 21-7-1 - 10; 3-1-7; § 32-5A-220; § 24-8A-1 - 5; § 13A-11-230 - 235 | AL ST § 21-7-1 - 10; § 3-1-7; § 32-5A-220; § 24-8A-1 - 5; § 13A-11-230 - 235 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service animal, assistance animal, and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Animal Law Review Vol 12, No. 2 Table of Contents |
|
Policy |