|In re Marriage of Berger and Ognibene-Berger||(Decisions Without Published Opinions) 834 N.W.2d 82 (Table) (2013)||(unpublished) 2013 WL 1749799||Joe Berger appeals from the provisions of the decree of divorce from Cira Berger, including the court’s grant of Max, the family golden retriever, to Cira. He argues that it would be more equitable to grant him ownership of Max because Cira already owns another dog, Sophie, and the parties’ son, who lives with Joe, is very attached to Max. The district court made their decision based on which party would be more available to care for the dog. This court affirms that decision, citing evidence that Max is licensed to Cira, only Cira’s name is in the dog’s ‘GEO tracker’ device, and Cira got Max medical attention even when Max was in Joe’s care. The court specified that they need not determine a pet's best interests when deciding custody.||Case|
|VA - Fur - § 3.2-6589. Selling garments containing dog or cat fur prohibited; penalty||Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6589||VA ST § 3.2-6589||This Virginia statute makes it illegal to sell a garment containing the fur of a "domestic" dog or cat. Violation incurs up to a $10,000 penalty.||Statute|
|NY - Ordinances - Chapter 62. Of the Consolidated Laws.||McKinney's Town Law § 130||NY TOWN § 130||This New York statute provides that a town board after a public hearing may enact, amend and repeal ordinances, rules and regulations not inconsistent with law, including the restraining of the running at large of horses, cattle, sheep, unmuzzled dogs, whether licensed or not, and those authorizing the impounding and sale of the same for the costs of keeping, proceedings and penalty, or the killing of unmuzzled dogs. It also provides that towns may enact ordinances promoting the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community, as long they are not inconsistent with existing law.||Statute|
|Roos v. Loeser||183 P. 204 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1919)||41 Cal.App. 782 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1919)||
This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the killing of her dog, of the variety known as Pomeranian, by an Airedale belonging to the defendant. In 1919, a California court determined damages to be limited to the veterinary expenses connected with the injury to the animal. In the opinion, the court lovingly discusses the value of the animal. Notwithstanding these words of praise for the small animal, the court decided that the value was limited to the fair market value and related expenses.
|Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. Parshall||806 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2006)||25 A.D.3d 853, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 00064 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2006)||
In this New York case, a then seven-year-old boy was attending a gathering at the home of the owners of a German Shepard dog. According to the plaintiff, the dog growled at him when he arrived and allegedly growled at another man at the party sometime later. Defendant denied hearing the growl and t estimony showed that the boy continued to play with the dog throughout the party and into the next morning. When the boy was leaving in the morning, he attempted to “hug” the dog from behind when the dog turned and bit the boy in the face. In upholding defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court found that even if the dog had initially growled at the boy, that was not enough to establish that the dog had vicious propensities or that the owners had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities.
|England - Circus - The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012||2012 No.||These Regulations set out license conditions for wild animals in travelling circuses, including animal welfare requirements. Licensing conditions include providing lifelong care for the retirement of every licensed animal.||Statute|
|CO - Service animal - Article 23. Training Veterans to Train Their Own Service Dogs Pilot Program||C. R. S. A. § 26-23-101 - 105||CO ST § 26-23-101 - 105||
This set of Colorado laws (effective June of 2016) creates a pilot program for veterans to train their own service dogs. The program identifies a group of up to 10 veterans to pair with dogs. Qualified canine trainers will work with the veterans to use train the dogs for use as service dogs. The program will further offer those veterans who graduate from the program with a trained dog the opportunity and necessary follow-along services to expand the program, if willing, by identifying, fostering, and training a subsequent dog for another eligible veteran who is unable to complete one or more parts of the process due to physical limitations. Other sections of the article explain the criteria for selecting the non-profit agencies for implementation and the creation of a fund in the state treasury.
|SC - Hunting - § 50-1-137. Impeding or obstructing hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting of marine||Code 1976 § 50-1-137||SC ST § 50-1-137||In South Carolina, it is unlawful for a person wilfully to impede or obstruct another person from lawfully hunting, trapping, fishing, or harvesting marine species. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.||Statute|
|NE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Article 10)||Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1001 - 1020||NE ST § 28-1001 to 1020||This Nebraska statutory section comprises the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The cruelty provision provides that a person who abandons or cruelly neglects an animal is guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. Intentional animal cruelty results in a Class I misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class IV felony for any subsequent offense, unless such cruel mistreatment involves the knowing and intentional torture, repeated beating, or mutilation of the animal where such an act automatically results in a Class IV felony. Animal means any vertebrate member of the animal kingdom, but does not include an uncaptured wild creature (which appears to exclude otherwise heinous, intentional acts to wildlife).||Statute|
|Volosen v. State||192 S.W.3d 597(Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2006)||2006 WL 349713 (Tx. 2006)||
In this Texas case, the trial court found Appellant Mircea Volosen guilty of animal cruelty for killing a neighbor's dog. The sole issue on appeal is whether the State met its burden of presenting legally sufficient evidence that Volosen was "without legal authority" to kill the dog. By statute, a dog that "is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked ... fowls may be killed by ... any person witnessing the attack." The court found that no rational trier of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog was not attacking or had not recently attacked chickens in a pen in Volosen's yard; thus, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that Volosen killed the dog "without legal authority" as required to sustain a conviction for animal cruelty. Judgment Reversed by Volosen v. State , 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex.Crim.App., 2007).