Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whelen v. Barlow | 1975 CarswellAlta 242 | [1976] W.W.D. 35 |
Plaintiff Whelen was drunken, threatening and disorderly in defendant Barlow's hotel bar, where he kept guard dogs for the purpose of preventing break-ins and keeping the peace. After the plaintiff and friends were asked to leave the premises and not return, he later returned, making threatening gestures and was bitten on the face and arm by one of the guard-dogs. The court held that the plaintiff was 2/3 contributorily liable for his injuries, since when he returned he was trespassing; the defendant was 1/3 contributorily liable since the court held that keeping volatile guard-dogs as bouncers was not reasonable. |
Case | |
| Westberry v. Blackwell | 577 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978) | 282 Or. 129 (Or. 1978) |
In this Oregon case, plaintiff filed this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when she was bitten by defendants' dog. The complaint alleged a cause of action for strict liability and another for negligence. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary nonsuit on both causes of action. On appeal, this court found the previous biting, which had occurred only one hour before, could reasonably lead a jury to believe that the dog had dangerous propensities, and that the defendants had knowledge of them. Thus, the court found that the involuntary nonsuit on the strict liability cause was improperly granted. Further, the question of whether the owner, who knew the dog had bitten the guest while on her way into the owner's house, was negligent in failing to control or confine the dog, was for the jury. Reversed and remanded. |
Case | |
| Slavin v. US | 403 F.3d 522 (8th Cir. 2005) |
Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act after it created a regulation that prohibited the interstate or foreign commerce transport of birds that would be used in fighting ventures. She argued that the regulators did not consider whether fighting ventures were legal in the state where the birds were being transported to. However, the regulation was considered constitutional since under terms of section 2156(b), only the foreign and interstate transport of the birds was prohibited. |
Case | ||
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin | 665 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.Me., 2009) | 2009 WL 3403128 (D.Me.) |
Plaintiffs in this case filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to halt the commencement of the early coyote and fox trapping season in the state of Maine. Plaintiffs claim that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW)Commissioner had violated the ESA by allowing trapping activities that “take” Canada lynx, a threatened species. The DIFW stated that the Court has already addressed a motion for preliminary injunction and an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, with no change to circumstances. In denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. Further, the Court found that the circumstances that led the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order have not changed. |
Case | |
| People v Arcidicono | 360 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1974) | 79 Misc.2d 242 (1974) |
The defendant was properly convicted of cruelty when a horse in his custody and care had to be destroyed due to malnutrition. The defendant was in charge of feeding the gelding, and was aware of his loss of weight. He knew the diet was inadequate but failed to provide more food. The defendant was guilty of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 for failing to provide proper sustenance to the horse. |
Case | |
| CO - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 14. Wildlife Rehabilitation. | 2 CO ADC 406-14 | 2 CCR 406-14:1400 to 1407 | This set of Colorado rules concerns wildlife rehabilitation licensing. Requirements for wildlife holding enclosures are outlined. The care, treatment, and disposition of wildlife requirements are detailed as well as provisions for releasing wildlife. | Administrative | |
| NY - Licenses - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. Article 7. Licensing, Identification and Control of Dogs | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 110 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 110 | This New York statute provides the schedule of license fees for all dogs. It also enables local municipalities to enact licensing ordinances in addition to the fee proscribed by statute. This additional revenue shall be used only for controlling dogs and enforcing this article and any rule, regulation, or local law or ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, including subsidizing the spaying or neutering of dogs and subsidizing public humane education programs in responsible dog ownership. | Statute | |
| Downey v. Pierce County | 267 P.3d 445 (Wash.App. Div. 2, 2011) | 2011 WL 5931911 (Wash.App. Div. 2) |
Dog owner sued county challenging county's dangerous animal declaration (DAD) proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that charging a fee to obtain an initial evidentiary review of a DAD violated owner's due process rights because it impacted owner's property and financial interests and potentially subjected her to future criminal sanctions. The court also held that the lack of an adequate evidentiary standard regarding review of DADs violated due process because the ordinance required only that the reviewing auditor determine if there was sufficient evidence to support the DAD. |
Case | |
| TN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 1660-01-18. Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife | TN ADC 1660-01-18-.01 to .06 | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-18-.01 to .06 | These Tennessee regulations outline the requirements for importation and possession of captive wildlife. The species of wildlife for each class of wildlife are described. Facilities for Class I wildlife are provided, which include specific requirements for Class I Felidae or Ursidae. The Class I qualification test requirements are also stated. | Administrative | |
| Allen v. Cox | 942 A.2d 296 (Conn. 2008) | 285 Conn. 603 (2008) |
The plaintiff (Allen) brought this action against the defendants (Jessica Cox and Daniel Cox) alleging that she was injured by the defendants' cat after the defendants negligently allowed the cat to roam free. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the defendants. Relying mainly on the Restatement (Second), this court held that when a cat has a propensity to attack other cats, knowledge of that propensity may render the owner liable for injuries to people that foreseeably result from such behavior. |
Case |