Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| CT- Pet Shops - Sec. 22-344-21a. Prohibited sales | CT ADC § 22-344-32 - 94 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 22-344-32 - § 22-344-94 | This Connecticut regulation lists the animals of which the exhibition, sale or offer for sale by a pet shop is prohibited. The condition in which commercial kennel facilities, pet shops, grooming facilities, training facilities, and animal shelters must be kept are described including sanitation, health requirements, ventilation, and other structural requirements. | Administrative | |
| IL - Ordinances - 5/7. Remittance of fees; Animal Control Fund; use of fund; self-insurance | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/7 | IL ST CH 510 § 5/7 | This Illinois statute provides that all registration fees collected shall be remitted the county Animal Control Fund. This fund shall be set up for the purpose of paying costs of the Animal Control Program. This includes paying claims for loss of livestock or poultry and for other ordinance enacted measures, including the purchase of human rabies anti-serum, human vaccine, the cost for administration of serum or vaccine, minor medical care; paying the cost of stray dog control, impoundment, education on animal control and rabies; or any county or municipal ordinance as established by ordinance of the County Board. In 2013, the statute was amended to provide different provisions for how the fund shall be used for cities with 3 million or more people and for cities with less than 3 million people. | Statute | |
| Trager v. Thor | 516 N.W.2d 69 (Mich.,1994) | 445 Mich. 95 (Mich.,1994) |
In this Michigan case involving an action for damages after personal injury, the father of the dog’s owner was visiting his son's home when he agreed to supervise the dog while his son and daughter-in-law went shopping. The n eighbor’s child was subsequently bitten by the dog, which had been put by defendant into a bedroom. This court held that the defendant, as a temporary caretaker of the dog, could not be held to the strict liability standard of an owner keeper, but could be liable under theory of negligence. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the father was negligent in fulfilling his duty of care in supervising the dog, which precluded summary judgment in a negligence action. |
Case | |
| PA - Permits - Chapter 133. Wildlife Classification. | 58 PA ADC § 133.1 - .6; 58 PA ADC § 133.21; 58 PA ADC § 133.41 | 58 Pa. Code § 133.1 to .6; 58 Pa. Code § 133.21; 58 Pa. Code § 133.41 | This set of Pennsylvania regulations defines terms used such as protected mammals, protected birds, endangered species, threatened species, and furbearers. | Administrative | |
| MI - Exotic Pets - Chapter 287. Animal Industry; Large Carnivore Act | M. C. L. A. 287.1101 - 1123 | MI ST 287.1101 - 1123 | This Michigan law bans acquisition and possession of large carnivores (big cats and bears), though it grandfathered animals already owned as pets at the time of the law's enactment. In order to maintain public safety and animal welfare, the state created a strict permit system for those owners who were allowed to keep their already-existing pets. The statute also outlines minimal care requirements, transportation guidelines, and procedures for when a large carnivore suspected of carrying rabies bites a human or livestock. | Statute | |
| FL - Ecoterrorism - Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act | West's F. S. A. § 828.40 - 43 | FL ST § 828.40 - 43 | This set of laws comprises the Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Under the Act, a person who intentionally causes physical disruption to the property, personnel, or operations of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property, including animals or records, used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage, commits a felony of the third degree. | Statute | |
| Demeo v. Manville | 68 Ill.App.3d 843 (1979) | 386 N.E.2d 917 (Ill.App. 2 Dist., 1979) |
This is an Illinois' small claims action involving the death of plaintiffs' show dog. Plaintiff alleged that defendant ran over the dog while it was tied up near the driveway. Defendant denied plaintiff’s allegations that defendant ran over the dog and used a cover-up story. The court upheld an award of five-hundred dollars although the purchase price was two-hundred. Plaintiff testified that he paid $200 for his dog when it was a puppy, but it had appeared in four shows, winning first prize in each. Evidence was considered for commercial value and special qualities in that case. |
Case |