Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY - Property, theft - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 366 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 366 | This New York statute provides that it is a crime to steal dogs, defined as: removing the collar, identification tag or any other identification by which the owner may be ascertained from any dog, cat or any other domestic animal; seizing or molesting any dog, while it is being held or led by any person or while it is properly muzzled or wearing a collar with an identification tag attached, except where such action is incidental to the enforcement of some law or regulation; or transporting any dog, not lawfully in his possession, for the purpose of killing or selling such dog. | Statute |
| MI - Wildlife Conservation -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M. C. L. A. 324.41101 - 41105 | MI ST 324.41101 - 41105 | These sections describe the regulatory powers of the Department of Natural Resources in issuing conservation orders protecting fish, game, and birds. | Statute |
| Gorman v. Pierce County | 176 Wash. App. 63, 307 P.3d 795 (2013) review denied, 179 Wash. 2d 1010, 316 P.3d 495 (2014) | 2013 WL 4103314 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) |
After leaving a sliding glass door open for her service dog and her neighbor's dog, the plaintiff in this case was mauled by two pit bulls. Plaintiff sued the dogs' owners under a strict liability statute and the county for negligently responding to prior complaints about the dogs. At trial, a jury not only found all defendants guilty, but also found the plaintiff contributorily negligent. Upon appeal, the court affirmed the judgment the lower court entered based on the jury verdict. Chief Judge Worswick concurred in part and dissented in part. |
Case |
| Zelman v. Cosentino | 22 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. 2005) | 803 N.Y.S.2d 652 (2005) |
A repairman was knocked over by a dog while working on a telephone line in the neighbor's yard. The repairman brought claims against the dog's owner under under theories of strict liability and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the dog's owner and the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
Case |
| Case Sea Cucumbers in Galapagos - Ecuador- Do not publish yet | Proceso No. 20331-2015-00232 | Case | ||
| ROL:293-15 “La arrastrada de Freirina” | RIT No. 323-2014 | This is the case of a pregnant dog dragged by a truck. The defendants also assaulted and threatened two people that witnessed the event and attempted to stop it. The court found the three defendants guilty of animal cruelty and sentenced them to 61 days in jail and a fine of 2 UTM for these charges. Additional jail time and penalties were given on the charges of assault, threatening, and damage to property. | Case | |
| Britton v. Bruin | Not Reported in P.3d, 2016 WL 1019213 (N.M. Ct. App., 2016) | 2016 WL 1019213 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2016) | In this case, plaintiff appealed a decision by the district court denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiff petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to stop the City of Albuquerque's effort to control a large population of feral cats in its metropolitan area by “trapping, neutering them, and then returning them” to the location at which they were found. The district court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because the court held that there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Also, the court held that because the city’s program did not result in any unconstitutional action, the writ of mandamus was not appropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling, looking only at whether or not there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” The court did not address the issue of whether or not the city’s population control effort was appropriate and should continue. The district court's order denying Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is affirmed. | Case |
| ND - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | NDCC 11-11-14; 20.1-04-12 - 12.2; 20.1-05-02.1; 23-36-01 - 09; 36-21-10 - 11; 40-05-01 -2; 40-05-19; 42-03-01 - 04; 43-29-16.1; 12.1-17-09 | ND ST 11-11-14; 20.1-04-12 - 12.2; 20.1-05-02.1; 23-36-01 - 09; 36-21-10 - 11; 40-05-01 -2; 40-05-19; 42-03-01 - 04; 43-29-16.1; 12.1-17-09 | These statutes comprise North Dakota's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal powers to regulate dogs, rabies, control laws, provisions that define dogs as a public nuisance, and laws concerning dogs that harass big game or livestock. | Statute |
| KS - Humane Slaughter - CHAPTER 47.LIVESTOCK AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS. | K. S. A. § 47-1401 to 1405 | KS ST § 47-1401 to 1405 | This Kansas section comprises the state's humane slaughter act. The act first begins with a statement of policy requiring the humane slaughter of all livestock. A humane method is defined as a method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.& The law also allows slaughter by a method in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. Any person who violates any provision of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Miller v. Peraino | 626 A.2d 637 (Pa.Super., 1993) | 426 Pa.Super. 189 (1993) |
The incident generating this dispute after two veterinary assistants claimed that Miller viciously beat plaintiff's dog Nera to death because he was having difficulty getting the dog from the basement recovery room to the waiting area upstairs where the dog would be picked up. The sole issue on this appeal is the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from both the dog's death and the veterinarian's behavior during plaintiff's picketing of his business. Relying on both the Restatement (Second) of Torts and a prior decision inDaughen v. Fox, the court held that intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot legally be founded upon a veterinarian's behavior toward an animal. |
Case |