Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balch v. Newberry | 208 Okla. 46, 253 P.2d 153, 35 A.L.R.2d 1267, 1953 OK 23 | 208 Okla. 46, 253 P.2d 153, 35 A.L.R.2d 1267, 1953 OK 23 |
In this Oklahoma case, plaintiff purchased a pointer dog for a payment of $800 cash, whom he purchased for breeding purposes. Plaintiff alleged, that for several years prior to March 24, 1947, defendant was engaged in the business of breeding and selling thoroughbred pointer bird dogs at Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that plaintiff had for many years been engaged in the business of operating kennels. In affirming the judgment for plaintiff, the court held that the purchase of a dog with the knowledge of the seller that it is bought exclusively for breeding purposes gives rise to a warranty of fitness for such purpose where the buyer relies upon the seller's skill and judgment that the dog is fit for such purpose. Where a sale of highly bred stud dog for breeding purposes is rescinded for breach of an implied warranty, because of sterility, the purchaser can recover what he paid under the contract and expenses necessarily incident to caring for the dog but he cannot, in addition, recover damages for the breach of the implied warranty of the dog's usefulness for breeding purposes. |
Case |
| People v. Tessmer | 137 N.W. 214 (Mich. 1912) | 171 Mich. 522 (Mich. 1912) |
Defendant was convicted of wilfully and maliciously killing the horse of another. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because there was no proof of malice toward the owner of the horse. The court held that the general malice of the law of crime was sufficient to support the conviction. |
Case |
| ME - Cruelty, reporting - § 3477. Persons mandated to report suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation | 22 M.R.S.A. § 3477 | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 3477 | This Maine statute lists the mandated reporters in the state who must immediately report known or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation, of an incapacitated or dependent adult. The statute also allows permissive reporting of animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect and allows animal control officers to make reports when necessary. | Statute |
| Criscuolo v. Grant County | 540 F.Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2013) | The plaintiff’s dog was shot by a police officer while eyewitnesses claim that right before he fired, the dog was stationary or retreating at a distance of 10-20 feet from the officer and his police K9. The pet owner filed suit against both the individual police officer and the municipality, who both claimed immunity, which was granted at the trial court. On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal of the municipality based on the fact that official policy did “not authorize unconstitutional conduct or give officers unbridled discretion to shoot any animal they encounter, even if it is not threatening.” However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision in regards to the officer’s immunity, holding that viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the killing was not necessarily reasonable to protect the officer’s safety or the safety of his police K9. | Case | |
| ME - Disaster - Chapter 307. State of Maine Animal Response Team. | 7 M.R.S.A. § 1901 - 1902 | ME ST T. 7 § 1901 - 1902 | The Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources is directed to develop a State of Maine Animal Response Team to support a network that protects human and animal health through preparation, response and recovery for animal emergencies. The Team is to facilitate a response to a natural or man-made disaster and minimize the economic and environmental impacts of animal emergencies. The Treasurer of State is mandated to establish the State of Maine Animal Response Team Fund to pay costs incurred by the Team. | Statute |
| Farnham v. Meder | 45 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., 2007) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 08529, 2007 WL 3318273 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), 845 N.Y.S.2d 619 |
In this New York case, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained when defendants' bull knocked him to the ground while plaintiff was chasing the bull from his own property. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's activities in chasing the bull constituted primary assumption of the risk. This court concluded that Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion. The record established that plaintiff was fully familiar with defendants' bull and had in fact chased the bull from plaintiffs' property on prior occasions. At no time had the bull ever acted aggressively toward plaintiff, and thus plaintiff had no reason to assume that the bull would do so on this particular occasion. |
Case |
| ZENIER v. SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL RAILROAD COMPANY | 300 P.2d 494 (Idaho, 1956) | 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho, 1956) |
In Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co ., 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho 1956), a rancher’s mare and colt was killed, and the rancher sought statutory damages and attorney fees. A jury found for the rancher and imposed damages mainly on his testimony as to value. The railroad sought review, stating that the rancher's own negligence in allowing the horses to run barred recovery and there was no objective evidence as to value. The court upheld the award, finding that the animal’s value to the rancher was permitted as a basis for determining damages where personal property has been injured by the willful or negligent act of another. |
Case |
| OR - Testing, animal - 646A.009. Sale of cosmetics developed or manufactured | O.R.S. § 646A.005 - .028 | OR ST § 646A.005 - .028 | This Oregon chapter deals with animal testing in cosmetics. Under the chapter, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. Limited exceptions exist. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation this act incurs a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first day of the violation and not more than $1,000 for each day that the violation continues. | Statute |
| O'MALLEY, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia | 785 S.E.2d 221 (Va.,2016) | 66 Va. App. 296 (Va., 2016) | The appellant, John Dixon O'Malley was not charged with or convicted of any crime. However, he was issued a summons to determine whether his dog was dangerous pursuant to Virginia Code § 3.2–6540(A) and (B). The jury found O’Malley's dog to be dangerous under the Virginia Code due to attacking and injuring the dog of Randall Powell. O’Malley appealed the trial court decision to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The Court of Appeals concluded that they did not have jurisdiction over the appeal due to being a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court relied on Virginia Code § 17.1–406(A) which provides that the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction was limited to appeals from final criminal convictions. The Court of Appeals reasoned that no language in Code § 3.2–6540 characterized as criminal the proceeding to identify a canine as a dangerous dog. Therefore, the finding at the trial level that O’Malley's dog was dangerous was civil in nature. Because the finding was civil in nature, the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over O’Malley’s appeal and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Virginia. | Case |
| MN - Lien, veterinay - Chapter 514. Liens Against Property. Agricultural Liens. | M. S. A. § 514.965 - 966 | MN ST § 514.965 - 966 | These Minnesota statutes relate to agricultural liens on livestock. Under these sections, an “agricultural lien” includes a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production input lien, and feeder's lien. In section 514.966 entitled, "Agricultural lien on livestock," a licensed veterinarian performing emergency veterinary services in the ordinary course of business that cost more than $25 for animals at the request of the owner or a person in possession of the animals has a lien on the animals for the value of the services. Additionally, a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production lien, or feeder's lien attaches to the livestock serviced by the agricultural lienholder, and products and proceeds thereof to the extent of the price or value of the service provided. To perfect the lien, a financing statement must be filed within the time periods established in the law. | Statute |