Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA - Dangerous - Louisiana Dangerous Dog & Dog Bite Laws | LA R.S. 14:102.12 - 18; L.A. R.S. § 2771 - 2778 | These Louisiana statutory sections provide the state's animal control and dangerous dog laws. A dog becomes dangerous when (1) unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; (2) any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or (3) any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog. The section also provides laws on licensing, vaccination, and prohibitions on dogs running at large. | Statute | ||
| Allison v. Johnson | 2001 WL 589384 (Ohio 2001) |
Appellant was injured by appellee’s horse when appellant was standing outside a horse arena waiting for the appellee. The horse began to shuffle backwards and backed into a gate, which popped out of a bracket and struck the appellant in the face. The trial court found and the court of appeals upheld the finding that the appellant was an “equine activity participant” because she was a spectator to the “normal daily care of an equine.” In addition, the appellee was determined to be an “equine activity sponsor” due to the fact that he was an “operator” of a stable where the equine activity occurred. Thus, the equine immunity statute of Ohio is applicable to the appellee. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Transportation of Animals on Foreign Air Carriers | 2004 WL 724205 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 04-7738 |
There has been a regulation update where a decision has been made to regulate the transportation of animals in commerce to all foreign air carriers, to or from any point within the United States. If an animal is protected by the AWA, it will continue to be protected when being transported within or from the United States. This update essentially increases the level of protection that animals protected under the AWA will receive. |
Administrative | |
| DC - Cruelty, reporting - § 22-1002.01. Reporting requirements. | DC ST § 22-1002.01 | D.C. Code Ann. § 22-1002.01 | This District of Columbia statute requires that any law enforcement or child protective services employee who knows or has reason to suspect than an animal is experiencing cruelty, abandonment, or neglect shall provide a report of the abuse within the specified time. The statute also states that any employee who observes an animal at the home of a person reasonably suspected of child, adult, or animal abuse should report it. The statute also specifies what information the report must include for completion. | Statute | |
| Gregory v. City of Vallejo, et al. | 63 F.Supp.3d 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2014) | In this case, the plaintiff’s dog was shot by a police officer who was responding to the plaintiff’s call for police assistance in investigating a bank fraud matter. Upon arrival at the home, the officer entered the low-fenced front yard and two of the plaintiff’s dogs approached. The officer, the only eyewitness to the encounter, then shot and killed one of the plaintiff’s dogs. The plaintiff filed suit against the officer and municipality, and alleged, inter alia, violations of her Fourth Amendment rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of state statutes. The court held that enough factual issues were disputed to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the killing of the dog was reasonable. | Case | ||
| IA - Humane Slaughter - Meat and Poultry Inspection Act | I. C. A. § 189A.1 - .22 | IA ST § 189A.1 - 22 | This Iowa section, known as the Meat and Poultry Inspection Act, also contains the state's humane slaughter laws. For purposes of this section an approved humane slaughtering method shall include and be limited to slaughter by shooting, electrical shock, captive bolt, or use of carbon dioxide gas prior to the animal being shackle hoisted, thrown, cast or cut (except for the ritual requirements proscribed by the Jewish or any other religious faith). Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter for which no other criminal penalty is provided shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor, which appears to include the humane slaughter provision. | Statute | |
| WI - St. Francis - Breed - § 180-5 Dangerous and Vicious Dogs | ST. FRANCIS, WI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 180-5 (2008) |
In St. Francis, Wisconsin, no person may harbor, keep or maintain any pit bull that was not registered and licensed by October 1, 2001. Any person having knowledge that another has an unregistered pit bull must file a sworn affidavit with the Municipal Court Clerk. Owners of pit bulls that are allowed must comply with all provisions applicable to dangerous dogs, such as securely confining the dog, displaying a dangerous dog sign, and if off of the premises, keep the dog muzzled and on a leash. A violation may result in impoundment of the dog, as well as a forfeiture of up to $1,000. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia Inc v Hammarquist | (2003) 138 A Crim R 329 | [2003] WASCA 35 |
The respondents were charged with nine counts of inflicting unnecessary suffering on an animal, a cow, and one count of of subjecting 50 cows to unnecessary suffering. The trial judge found the respondents wrongly charged and dismissed the charges without the prosecution clearly articulating its case. The trial judge was incorrect to dismiss the charges for want of particulars. The trial magistrate was also incorrect to dismiss the tenth charge for duplicity. In some circumstances it is possible to include multiple offences in the same charge where the matters of complaint are substantially the same. |
Case | |
| Sentencia Juicio de Amparo 1056/2021 - Elephant Ely - Do NOT publish | Case | ||||
| Castillo Condominium Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development | 821 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 1732499 (1st Cir. May 2, 2016) | In 2010, the Castillo Condominium Association learned that Carlo Giménez Bianco (Giménez), a condominium resident, was keeping a dog on the premises and warned him that he would be fined unless he removed the dog. Giménez, who suffered from anxiety and depression, advised the board of directors that he planned to keep his emotional support dog and that he was entitled to do so under federal law. As a result of the conflict, Giménez was forced to vacate and sell his unit and he filed a complaint of disability discrimination with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD filed a charge of discrimination against the Association under the Fair Housing Act. An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the Association had not violated the Act because Giménez failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered from a mental impairment. The ALJ’s decision was appealed to the Secretary, who found that Gimenez suffered from a cognizable disability. The Court of Appeals, First Circuit, held that substantial evidence supported the Secretary's finding that the Association's refusal to allow Gimenez to keep an emotional support dog in his condominium unit as a reasonable accommodation for his disability violated the Fair Housing Act. The Association’s petition for review was denied and the Secretary’s cross petition was granted. | Case |