Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frank v. Animal Haven, Inc. | 107 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2013.) | 967 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04711 |
Plaintiff was bitten by the dog that she adopted from Animal Haven, Inc. and sued that entity for personal injuries stemming from the bite. In affirming the decision to dismiss the complaint, this court noted that the adopting parties signed a contract a the time of adoption where they undertook a "lifetime commitment" for the responsible care of the dog. While the contract stipulated that Animal Haven had the right to have the dog returned if the plaintiff breached the contract, this did not reserve a right of ownership of the dog. Further, the contract also explicitly relieved Animal Haven of liability once the dog was in the possession of the adoptive parties. |
Case | |
| TN - Ecoterrorism - Part 8. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection | T. C. A. § 39-14-801 - 806 | TN ST § 39-14-801 - 806 | This chapter comprises the Tennessee Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without consent, the person exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of the facility, animal, or property and to disrupt the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Other offenses include destruction of property, including freeing of animals located there, or entering an animal facility with the intent to disrupt or damage the enterprise or its property. A violation is a Class C felony if the person exercises control over the facility or the damage is $500 or more. A violation is a Class B misdemeanor if the damage is less than $500 or the person illegally enters the facility with intent to damage it. Any person who has been damaged by reason of a violation of this part may recover all actual and consequential damages, punitive damages, and court costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the person causing the damage. | Statute | |
| NH - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 508. Limitation of Actions. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 508:19 | NH ST § 508:19 | This New Hampshire statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person engaged in an equine activity, shall not be liable for an injury or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. The statute also sets out several definitions and specifically states that the term "engages in an equine activity" does not include being a spectator at an equine activity, except in cases where the spectator is in an unauthorized area and in immediate proximity to the equine activity. | Statute | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne | 2006 WL 2844232 | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71137 |
Ten non-profit groups sued the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) alleging that the FWS had not adequately explained why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat under the Endangered Species Act, as the FWS had previously been ordered by the court to do. Additionally, the non-profit groups claimed that the FWS had violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by passing regulations which made it easier for federal agencies to thin trees in lynx habitat under the Healthy Forest Initiative. The Court ordered the FWS to explain why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat, but found that the challenged regulations making it easier to thin trees in lynx habitat were permissible. |
Case | |
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 05, 1972 | Ley 05 de 1972 | This statute creates and regulates the creation of the Boards for Animal Defense. These boards, once legally constituted, become legal persons, with their main goal to raise awareness and educate the community about respect towards animals and animal protection through educational programs. Ley 5, 1972, establishes the creation of these boards as mandatory in all the municipalities in the country, as well as fines and arrests for those who are found responsible for committing cruel acts towards animals. At the same time, it establishes that the police have a duty to assist the Animal Defense Boards in the fulfillment of their goals. These boards are integrated by the Mayor or his/her delegate; the Parish Priest or his slender; the Municipal Representative or his/her delegate; a representative of the Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock of the respective Department; and a delegate chosen by the directives of the local schools. With the creation of these boards, the law seeks to promote educational campaigns that “tend to awaken the spirit of love towards animals that are useful to humans and to avoid cruel acts and unjustified mistreatment and abandonment of such animals." | Statute | ||
| Muela v. Gomez | 343 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 2011) | 2011 WL 648940 (Tex.App.-El Paso) |
Defendant Samuel Muela appeals a judgment for damages in the amount of $30,279.45 after plaintiff was attacked by a pit bull. Samuel contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he owned or possessed the pit bull and thus had no knowledge of its vicious propensities. The court concluded that there is no evidence that Samuel lived at his parents' trailer or owned the pit bull. Additionally, while Samuel did visit his parents' house to feed their pet dog, there was no direct evidence that he had ever seen the pit bull or knew of it. The court reversed and rendered judgment that Gomez take nothing against Samuel. |
Case | |
| State v. Taffet (unpublished) | Not Reported in A.2d, 2010 WL 771954 (N.J.Super.A.D.) |
The State of New Jersey, through the Borough of Haddonfield, appeals from the final judgment of the Law Division, which reversed the finding of the municipal court that defendant's dog is a potentially dangerous dog pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:19-23(a) as well as the imposition of certain measures to mitigate any future attacks. Defendant, a resident of Haddonfield, owns, breeds, and shows four Rhodesian Ridgebacks kept at his home in a residential neighborhood. The Superior Court concluded that the Law Division's did not properly defer to the trial court's credibility determinations and were not supported by sufficient credible evidence. The court found that the dog's dual attacks causing bodily injury to two individuals were undisputed, and along with evidence of more recent intimidating activity in the neighborhood, the municipal court could have reasonably concluded that the dog posed a more serious threat to cause bodily injury to another.
|
Case | ||
| OR - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | O.R.S. § 31.360; O. R. S. § 87.172, O. R. S. § 167.374, 376; O. R. S. § 433.340 - 405; O. R. S. § 609.010 - 994; O. R. S. § 498.102, 106, and 164; O.R.S. § 646A.075 - 077; O.R.S. § 811.200; O.R.S. § 30.815 | These Oregon statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing and registration requirements, rabies control laws, and a comprehensive section on damage done by dogs, especially as it concerns the destruction of livestock. | Statute | ||
| MO - Equine Activity Liability - 537.325. Definitions--liability for equine or livestock | V. A. M. S. 537.325 | MO ST 537.325 | This Missouri statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and no participant shall make maintain an action against an equine operator. Statutory definitions are provided, including "participant," "inherent risk," and who is considered an "equine sponsor" or "equine professional." The term "engages in an equine activity" does not include being a spectator at an equine activity, except in cases where the spectator places him or herself in an unauthorized area. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. | Statute | |
| CO - Exotic Pets and Wildlife - Chapter 11. Wildlife Parks and Unregulated Wildlife. | 2 Colo. Code Regs. 406-11:1100 to 11:1116 | 2 CCR 406-11:1100 to 11:1116 | (Per introduction to regulations). In this introduction to chapter 11 we outline possession requirements for live wildlife as found in Colorado wildlife law. There is growing interest in the private possession of live wildlife. At the same time there is considerable confusion over the laws regarding such private possession. Colorado wildlife law generally prohibits the importation, live possession, sale, barter, trade, or purchase of any species of wildlife native to Colorado (33-6-113(1), C.R.S.). In addition, these same laws restrict or prohibit the importation and possession of exotic (non-native) wildlife (33-6-109(4), C.R.S.); and non-commercial (pet) possession of regulated mammals has been prohibited by these regulations since 1983. The Wildlife Commission also maintains a prohibited species list in Chapter 0. The possession of these species is severely restricted. | Administrative |