Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio v. George | 2014-Ohio-5781 (App. Ct, 2014) | Clayton George was convicted of raping two children of his girlfriend, age six and eight at the time of the crime. Among assignments of error on appeal was that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing Avery, a facility dog, to accompany the two children during their testimony without a showing of necessity. On appeal, the defense argued that (1) unlike the facility dogs in Tohom, Spence, and Dye, Avery was “recognizable on the record while he was in court,” (2) the prosecution failed to show necessity for having Avery at trial, and (3) the standards set in Tohom, Spence, and Dye should have applied to determine whether Avery was permitted at trial. The appellate court noted that the defense had not objected to the presence of the dog during the trial nor had he made these three points at trial, meaning that the appellate court did not need to consider them for the first time on appeal under Ohio appellate law. The assignments of error were all overruled and the judgement of the trial court was affirmed. | Case | ||
| Hardsaw v. Courtney | 665 N.E.2d 603 (Ind.App.,1996) |
In this Indiana case, the Hardsaws appeal a jury verdict in favor of the Courtneys stemming from their complaint for damages against the Hardsaws after their daughter Kimberly was attacked and bitten by the Hardsaws' dog who was under the supervision of the Hardsaw's 12-year-old daughter at the time of the attack. The Courtneys alleged negligent entrustment. On appeal, the Hardaws argue that, as a matter of law, absent evidence of prior viciousness, they could not have been negligent in entrusting Buster to their daughter and, thus, that this case should not have been submitted to the jury. The court found that the question of whether owner's entrustment of the control and restraint of a dog to a child was reasonable under the circumstances is a question for the jury. Here, the dog was restrained in the yard by a chain, but he was left under the care and supervision of a twelve-year-old child who had no previous experience supervising him. The judgment was affirmed. |
Case | ||
| Christine Valpiani and Anthony Valpiani, husband and wife, plaintiffs v. Lisa K. Reising, D.V.M. a Washington State veterinarian |
This King County, Washington motion for summary judgment sought dismissal of several of plaintiff's claims as well as a limitation to the damages that are recoverable. Plaintiffs claim that the negligence of defendant-veterinarian caused the death of their dog (defendant admitted negligence so the issue here centers on damages). The court held that plaintiffs may assert claims for loss of use, but not loss of companionship. |
Pleading | |||
| US - AWA - House Conference Report 1985 (AWA) | House Conference Report 99-447 (1985) |
The Senate amendment designates this title as the “Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act.” |
Administrative | ||
| TX - Rabies control - § 169.22. Definitions | 25 TX ADC § 169.22 | 25 TAC § 169.22 | This code is the definition section for the Texas Administrative Code's regulations on rabies control. | Administrative | |
| WA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | West's RCWA 4.24.410; 9.08.010 - 90; 9A.76.200; 9.91.170 - 175; 16.10.010 - 40; 16.54.010 - 40; 16.70.010 - 60; 36.49.020 - 070; 77.12.077; 77.15.240, 245, 440; 77.32.525; 77.32.540 | WA ST 4.24.410; 9.08.010 - 90; WA ST 9A.76.200; WA ST 9.91.170 - 175; 16.10.010 - 40; 16.54.010 - 40; 16.70.010 - 60; 36.49.020 - 070; 77.12.077; 77.15.240, 245, 440; 77.32.525; 77.32.540 | These Washington statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include vaccination requirements, dog control zones in municipalities, dangerous dog laws, and provisions concerning hunting with dogs. | Statute | |
| People v. Haynes | 760 N.W.2d 283 (Mich.App.,2008) | 281 Mich.App. 27 (2008); 2008 WL 4365966 |
In this Michigan case, the defendant pleaded no contest to committing an “abominable and detestable crime against nature” with a sheep under MCL 750.158. In addition to sentencing consistent with being habitual offender, the trial court found that defendant's actions evidenced sexual perversion, so the court ordered defendant to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (“SORA”). The Court of Appeals reversed the order, holding that while sheep was the “victim” of the crime, registration was only required if the victim was a human being less than 18 years old. SORA defines “listed offense” as including a violation of section 158 if a victim is an individual less than 18 years of age. Relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of "victim," the court concluded that an animal was not intended to be considered a victim under the statute. |
Case | |
| Cornett v. Red Stone Group, Inc. | Cornett v. Red Stone Group, 41 N.E.3d 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) |
Cornett filed suit against Red Stone Group, Inc. alleging negligence and premise liability. Cornett argued that Red Stone Group maintained a defective gate and fence that led to the Red Stone Group's horses escaping and trampling Cornett which caused her serious injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Red Stone Group on the basis of that it was immune from liability under the equine activities statute. Cornett appealed the court’s decision and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Ultimately, the court of appeals needed to determine whether or not Red Stone Group was immune from liability under the statute. In order to determine whether or not Red Stone Group was covered under the statute, the court of appeals looked to the language of the statute. After looking at the language of the statute, the court of appeals found that Cornett was an “equine activity participant” at the time of her injury and therefore Red Stone Group could not be liable for her injuries. Finally, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and granted summary judgment for Red Stone Group. |
Case | ||
| CA - Prize animals - § 599. Selling or giving away poultry or rabbits as inducement to enter contest, place of amusement or busi | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599 | CA PENAL § 599 | This statute makes it a misdemeanor to sell or give away, any live chicks, rabbits, ducklings, or other fowl as a prize for, or as an inducement to enter, any contest, game or other competition. It also makes it a crime to dye or artificially color any of these animals, or display them without adequate facilities. | Statute | |
| TX - Dangerous - Subchapter E: Dangerous Wild Animals | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 822.101 - 116 | TX HEALTH & S § 822.101 - 116 | Chapter 822, Subchapter E regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. It imposes a registration requirement upon the owner of a dangerous wild animal and also sets forth insurance requirements. One thing to note is that Texas animal cruelty laws do not apply to these wild animals. | Statute |