Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whelen v. Barlow | 1975 CarswellAlta 242 | [1976] W.W.D. 35 |
Plaintiff Whelen was drunken, threatening and disorderly in defendant Barlow's hotel bar, where he kept guard dogs for the purpose of preventing break-ins and keeping the peace. After the plaintiff and friends were asked to leave the premises and not return, he later returned, making threatening gestures and was bitten on the face and arm by one of the guard-dogs. The court held that the plaintiff was 2/3 contributorily liable for his injuries, since when he returned he was trespassing; the defendant was 1/3 contributorily liable since the court held that keeping volatile guard-dogs as bouncers was not reasonable. |
Case | |
| Westberry v. Blackwell | 577 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978) | 282 Or. 129 (Or. 1978) |
In this Oregon case, plaintiff filed this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when she was bitten by defendants' dog. The complaint alleged a cause of action for strict liability and another for negligence. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary nonsuit on both causes of action. On appeal, this court found the previous biting, which had occurred only one hour before, could reasonably lead a jury to believe that the dog had dangerous propensities, and that the defendants had knowledge of them. Thus, the court found that the involuntary nonsuit on the strict liability cause was improperly granted. Further, the question of whether the owner, who knew the dog had bitten the guest while on her way into the owner's house, was negligent in failing to control or confine the dog, was for the jury. Reversed and remanded. |
Case | |
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population f | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH44, 2005 WL 779150 (F.R.) |
This final rule is a collaborative effort between the FWS and the states of Tennessee and Alabama and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. to reintroduce the boulder darter ( Etheostoma wapiti ) , an endangered fish, and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha ) , a threatened fish to its historical habitat in Lauderdale County Alabama and Lawrence County, Tennessee. This rule provides for Non-essential Experimental Populations (NEP) within the designated area and it establishes limited allowable legal takings in that area. Additionally, this rule also changes the scientific name of the spotfin chub from Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha to Erimonax monachus , to reflect a recent change in the scientific literature. |
Administrative | ||
| NY - Licenses - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. Article 7. Licensing, Identification and Control of Dogs | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 110 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 110 | This New York statute provides the schedule of license fees for all dogs. It also enables local municipalities to enact licensing ordinances in addition to the fee proscribed by statute. This additional revenue shall be used only for controlling dogs and enforcing this article and any rule, regulation, or local law or ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, including subsidizing the spaying or neutering of dogs and subsidizing public humane education programs in responsible dog ownership. | Statute | |
| Southeastern Community College v. Davis | 99 S.Ct. 2361 (1979) |
Applicant to nursing program brought suit against the college alleging discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for denying her acceptance to the program based on her physical disability of being deaf. The college alleged that the applicant was not "otherwise qualified" under the statute because, even if provided accommodations for her hearing disability, she would be unable to safely participate in the clinical training program. The court held that "otherwise qualified" under the statute means that a person is qualified for the program "in spite of" the handicap, and that the applicant here was not otherwise qualified for the program. The court also held that a program authority is not required to ignore the disability of the applicant when determining eligibility for the program. Rather, the statute only requires that the disabled person not be denied the benefits of the program solely because of the disability. |
Case | ||
| Stennette v. Miller | 316 Ga.App. 425, 729 S.E.2d 559 (Ga.App., 2012) | 2012 WL 2384423 (Ga.App.) |
Plaintiff Stennette was providing in-home nursing care while she was bitten multiple times by Defendant Miller's dog. Stennette appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Miller in Stennette's personal injury action. This Court affirmed that decision because Stennette failed to provide adequate evidence showing triable issues on whether the dog had a vicious propensity and whether Miller knew of that propensity. However, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Miller on Stennette's claim that Miller negligently performed a voluntarily-undertaken duty to keep the dog away from her when she was at the house, because the evidence created genuine issues of material fact as to this claim. |
Case | |
| Downey v. Pierce County | 267 P.3d 445 (Wash.App. Div. 2, 2011) | 2011 WL 5931911 (Wash.App. Div. 2) |
Dog owner sued county challenging county's dangerous animal declaration (DAD) proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that charging a fee to obtain an initial evidentiary review of a DAD violated owner's due process rights because it impacted owner's property and financial interests and potentially subjected her to future criminal sanctions. The court also held that the lack of an adequate evidentiary standard regarding review of DADs violated due process because the ordinance required only that the reviewing auditor determine if there was sufficient evidence to support the DAD. |
Case | |
| England and Wales - Dogs - The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 | 2015 No. 138 | An order providing exemptions from the immediate destruction of a dangerous dog, by way of a Contingent Destruction Order. Following a conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Court must either order the immediate destruction of the dog, or the contingent destruction of a dog if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety. Contains conditions that must be met in relation to the dog, and requirements that the person in charge of the dog must comply with. | Statute | ||
| CA - Elephant Training - § 2128. Elephants; prohibited practices; penalties | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2128 | CA FISH & G § 2128 | This statute (operative on January 1, 2018) prohibits a person who houses, possesses, manages, or is in direct contact with an elephant from using a billhook, ankus, baseball bat, axe handle, pitchfork, and other devices that inflict pain for the purpose of training or controlling the elephant. Any person caught in violation of this statute will be subject to civil penalty and a suspension or revocation of his or her license to lawfully possess the animal. | Statute | |
| NC - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 67. Dogs. Article 1A. Dangerous Dogs. | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-1 to 18; N.C.G.S.A. § 130A-196, 130A-200 | NC ST § 67-1 to 18; NC ST § 130A-196, 130A-200 | These North Carolina statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog and dog bite laws. Among the provisions include misdemeanor penalties for an owner if a dangerous dog attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and strict liability in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal. Another statute provides that any person brought to receive medical treatment for a dog bite must report it to the local health director and the animal must be confined for a ten day observation period. | Statute |