Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee v. Cook |
Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages. |
Pleading | |||
| State ex rel. William Montgomery v. Brain | 422 P.3d 1065 (Ariz. Ct. App., 2018) | 2018 WL 2348473 (Ariz. Ct. App., 2018) | The special action considers whether a person who uses a dangerous instrument in committing an animal cruelty offense may be sentenced as a dangerous offender. The facts in the underlying case are as follows. A witness in an apartment complex heard a dog crying and observed Shundog Hu using a rod to hit a dog that was inside a pet enclosure. Hu was charged with both intentionally or knowingly subjecting an animal to cruel mistreatment, a felony, and under the "dangerous offense" laws because the animal cruelty "involved the discharge, use, or threatening exhibition of a pole and/or rod, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-105 and 13-704." Hu moved to dismiss the dangerous offense allegation stating that, as a matter of law, "a dangerous offense cannot be committed against an animal." Hu contended that the legislature's inclusion of the phrase "on another person" in the statutory definition for "dangerous offense" evinces this intent. The State, on the other hand, argued that sentencing enhancement is based on the use of the dangerous instrument rather than the target of the instrument. The superior court granted Hu's motion and the State petitioned for this special action. This court accepted jurisdiction because " the State has no adequate remedy on appeal and the petition presents a legal issue of statewide importance." This court first examined the statutory definition for a "dangerous" felony offense: "an offense involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury on another person.” The State's contention is that the "or" in the definition is disjunctive and, thus, the phrase "on another person" only applies to the second independent clause. Hu counters that such an interpretation would cover harm to anything and lead to absurd results. This court first noted that the statutory definitions are silent as to whether they only apply to humans. Applying principles of secondary interpretation and sensible construction, the court held that legislature's purpose in drafting the dangerous offense definition and the related statutes was to enhance crimes to “dangerous offenses” to protect human life. The State cannot charge a crime as a dangerous offense unless the target is against another person. In reaching this conclusion, the court contemplated extreme examples involving felony damage to vegetation as well as comparison to a recent decision in Texas where a deadly weapon finding was limited to human victims only. | Case | |
| TX - Dangerous - Subchapter D: Dangerous Dogs | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 822.041 - 047 | TX HEALTH & S § 822.041 - 047 | Chapter 822, Subchapter D addresses dangerous dogs and their treatment, including dog attacks, registration, defenses, violations of the statute. | Statute | |
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 124. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Introduced Wild Birds | Haw. Admin. Rules (HAR) § 13-124-1 to § 13-124-13 | HI ADC § 13-124-1 to § 13-124-13 | The purpose of this chapter is to conserve, manage, protect, and enhance indigenous wildlife; and manage introduced wild birds. | Administrative | |
| AR - Pine Bluff - Breed - Sec. 5-43. - Dangerous dog declaration/pit bull dogs restricted. | PINE BLUFF, AR., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 5-26, 5-27, 5-41 - 5-43 |
In Pine Bluffs, Arkansas, it is unlawful to keep any pit bull dog except as provided in section 54-3, with exceptions for pit bulls owned by local, state or federal agencies, used by law enforcement, or as a service animal by a handicapped or disabled person. Pit bulls must be registered, be vaccinated for rabies, be sterilized, and the owner must be at least 21 years old and keep liability insurance of $100,000. The dog must be properly confined with warning signs, and a leash and muzzle must be used.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| Park v. Moorman Mfg. Co. | 241 P.2d 914 (Utah,1952) | 121 Utah 339 (1952) |
Plaintiffs sued defendant corporation for breach of warranty as to fitness of purpose of poultry feed concentrate after egg production dropped, hens became malnourished, and an unusual amount of picking and cannibalism developed. As to the issue of damages, the Supreme Court held instruction that plaintiff was entitled to damages in amount of market value of chickens destroyed and that provided formula by which market value of suitable replacements could be determined was correct. |
Case | |
| AL - Racing - § 11-65-1 to § 11-65-47. Horse Racing and Greyhound Racing in Class 1 Municipalities | Ala.Code 1975 § 11-65-1 to § 11-65-47 | AL ST § 11-65-1 to § 11-65-47 | This set of statutes allows for municipalities in Alabama to vote on whether or not they wish to authorize horse and greyhound racing and pari-mutuel wagering. Each municipality that authorizes it must create a commission which must be incorporated in order for a municipality to conduct horse and greyhound racing. The commissions each regulate horse and greyhound racing only in their respective municipalities. A license must be obtained by the commission of the respective municipality in which one desires to operate or construct a racing facility. | Statute | |
| KS - Ulysses - Breed - ARTICLE 3. PIT BULL DOGS | ULYSSES, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-301 - 2-302 |
In Ulysses, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions. Pit bull dogs registered with the city as of July 19, 1989 may be kept subject to certain requirements, such as use of a leash and muzzle if outside, confinement, “Beware of Dog” signs, $50,000 insurance, and identification photographs. It is prohibited to sell or give a pit bull away except in limited circumstances. All pit bull puppies born in the city must be removed within six weeks of birth. Failure to comply may result in seizure of the dog, a fine of $200 to $1,000, and imprisonment up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| Sentencia T-608, 2011 | Sentencia T-608/11 | The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary created for the purpose of protection of fundamental rights) acting as the legal guardian of her husband, who had spastic quadriplegia and mixed aphasia as a result of a severe cranioencephalic trauma, against Corporación Autónoma Regional de Caldas ‘CORPOCALDAS’. The Plaintiff argued that Corpocaldas had violated the rights to health and dignified life of her husband when the Defendant confiscated a parrot that was part of the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation treatment. The Plaintiff sought immediate restitution of the parrot by the Defendant. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court to deny the Plaintiff’s petition. The court determined that the confiscation of the parrot by Corpocaldas was reasonable and according to the law, therefore there was not a violation of the rights of the Plaintiff. The court stated that as wild animals belong to the nation and they can only be reduced to property when the are obtained through legal hunting or from legal breeders. In this particular case, the Plaintiff obtained the parrot as a present from her cousin, and she did not present evidence of title. The court concluded that the bird belonged to the nation, and therefore the environmental authority had acted in accordance to its duties. The court stated that even though there was a narrow relationship between the rights to health and life with the right to environment, the protection of the environment did not only aim to the protection of humans. The court indicated that the environment should be protected whether or not it offered a benefit to the human species. The rest of the beings that are part of the environment are dignified beings that are not at the absolute and unlimited disposition of the human beings. Humans are just another element of nature, and not a superior entity that has the environment at their disposition. Therefore, the use of natural resources should not cause damage or deterioration that could threaten diversity and environmental integrity, the court stated in its reasoning. | Case | ||
| WI - Impound - 173.23. Disposition of animals | W. S. A. 173.23 | WI ST 173.23 | This Wisconsin statue provides the necessary elements for an owner needs to retrieve his or her impounded dog. Included are reasonable proof of ownership, licensure if required by statute or ordinance, proof of vaccination as required by ordinance, and payment of charges. If an animal is not claimed, the statute outlines several dispositions, such as adoption, euthanization, and sale of the animal at public auction, including sale at a licensed animal market. | Statute |