Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DC - Restaurant - Subchapter VII. Dining with Dogs. | DC CODE § 8-1865.01, .02 | These laws from 2018 allow food establishments in D.C. to permit dogs in outdoor dining areas of food establishments or unenclosed sidewalk cafés. These establishments must post signage outside that states dogs are permitted along with any restrictions on dogs based on size or temperament. They must also provide an entrance that does not require dogs to enter an indoor dining area or an area in which food is being stored or prepared to access the outdoor dining area and provide patrons with waste bags and a means of proper disposal. Patrons must keep their dog in a carrier or on a leash at all times and never leave the dogs unattended. | Statute | |
| OR - Domestic Violence - 107.718. Court order when petitioner in imminent danger of abuse (allows pets) | O.R.S. § 107.718 | OR ST § 107.718 | Under this Oregon law, if requested by a petitioner who has been the victim of domestic abuse, the court may enter an order to protect a companion or therapy animal. This includes an order to "[p]revent the neglect and protect the safety of any service or therapy animal or any animal kept for personal protection or companionship, but not an animal kept for any business, commercial, agricultural or economic purpose." | Statute |
| MO - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.A.M.S. 253.185; 270.010; 272.050; 273.010 - 405; 77.510; 80.090; 322.010 - 080; 10.112 - 113 | MO ST 253.185; 270.010; 272.050; 273.010 - 405; 77.510; 80.090; 322.010 - 080; 10.112 - 113 | These Missouri statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws for impounding loose dogs, licensing, rabies control, and the Animal Care Facilities Act, which regulates commercial breeders/pet shops. | Statute |
| McDonald v. Ohio State Univ. Veterinary Hospital | 644 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct.Cl., 1994) | 67 Ohio Misc.2d 40 (1994) |
After defendant filed a stipulation admitting liability for a botched surgery on defendant's show dog that ultimately led to euthanization, a trial was held as to the issue of damages. Evidence adduced at trial showed that "Nemo" had been trained by plaintiff as a Schutzhund or "sport dog" in Schutzhund schooling. The court noted that while dogs are considered personal property in Ohio and market value is the standard award for such personal property, market value in this case was merely a "guideline." In addition to the loss of the specially trained dog, the court also found significant the loss of stud fees for the dog and potential future gains in sustaining the trial court's award of $5,000 in damages. |
Case |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2018) | 2018 WL 1151000 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2018) | In 2012, Iowa passed a statute (Iowa code § 717A.3A) that criminalized gaining access to agricultural facilities under false pretenses and making a false representation on a job application for those facilities. Plaintiffs in this case (animal rights groups including the Animal Legal Defense Fund and PETA) brought suit alleging that the statute was unconstitutional and sought to enjoin the Defendants (governor of Iowa) from enforcing it. Their complaint alleged that the statute violates the First Amendment as discrimination on the basis of content, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by targeting animals rights groups, and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by burdening the freedom of speech. This case decides the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint based on lack of standing and failure to state a claim because the outlawed conduct is not protected by the First Amendment as false statements and is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting private property, thereby not violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denies Defendants' motion with respect to the First Amendment, concluding that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the intent to suppress their message because of their viewpoint. However, the court grants the motion to dismiss for the claim of a Fourteenth Amendment violation because the statute in fact serves a legitimate government purpose in protecting private property. | Case |
| NM - Property - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | NMSA 1978, § 77-1-1 | NM ST § 77-1-1 | Dogs, cats and domestic birds are considered personal property in New Mexico. | Statute |
| MD - Bite - Maryland Dangerous Dog Laws | MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-619 | MD CRIM LAW § 10-619 | This Maryland statute outlines what is a "Dangerous dog." As defined by statute, it is a dog that, without provocation, has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person, or it is a potentially dangerous dog that bites a person, when not on its owner's real property, kills or inflicts severe injury on a domestic animal, or attacks without provocation. An owner of a dangerous dog must keep the dog securely enclosed on his or her property or must muzzle and restrain the dog. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500. | Statute |
| Sacco v. Tate | 175 Misc.2d 901 (N.Y. 1998) | 175 Misc.2d 901, 672 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 98231 |
Plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover veterinary expenses incurred by reason of the fact that the dog sold to them by defendant was not healthy. The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to avail themselves of the remedies afforded by article 35-D of the General Business Law by reason of their failure to comply with the requirements set forth in section 753 thereof (to wit, they did not produce the dog for examination by a licensed veterinarian designated by the dealer, nor did they furnish the dealer with a certification of unfitness of the dog within three days after their receipt thereof). The court, however, noted that the article does not limit the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law, so the award by the court was affirmed (albeit on a different basis). |
Case |
| Respecting Animals: A Balanced Approach to Our Relationship with Pets, Food, and Wildlife |
|
Policy | ||
| MS - Dangerous Animal - Chapter 3. Crimes Against the Person. | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-45 | MS ST § 97-3-45 | This Mississippi law makes an owner liable for manslaughter if he or she wilfully allows a mischievous animal to go at large, or it goes at large because the owner fails to exercise ordinary care, and the animal, while at large or not confined, kills any human being who took reasonable precautions to avoid the animal. | Statute |
