Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH - Ordinance - 955.221 County, township, and municipal corporation ordinances to control dogs | R.C. § 955.221 | OH ST § 955.221 | This Ohio statute provides that a board of county commissioners, board of township trustees, municipal corporation may adopt and enforce resolutions to control dogs that are not otherwise in conflict with any other provision of the Revised Code. These ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include, but are not limited to, ordinances or resolutions concerned with the ownership, keeping, or harboring of dogs, the restraint of dogs, dogs as public nuisances, and dogs as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter. | Statute |
| MT - Butte-Silver County - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.04: Animal Control) | Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code §§ 6.04.010, 6.04.030, 6.04.150 to 6.04.220, 6.04.260, 6.04.292 |
In Butte-Silver Bow County, Montana, it is unlawful for any dog, whether restrained or unrestrained, to be in certain public places unless the dog is assisting a sight or hearing impaired person. Additionally, license fees are waived for dogs trained to assist sight or hearing impaired persons, when such dogs are actually being used by sight or hearing impaired persons, but such dogs must still obtain a license and must still be vaccinated. |
Local Ordinance | |
| McCausland v. People | McCausland v. People, 145 P. 685 (Colo. 1914) | Action by the People of the State of Colorado against William J. McCausland. From a judgement overruling defendant's motion to dismiss and finding him guilty of cruelty to animals, he brings error. Affirmed. | Case | |
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 23.094, 1984 | Ley Nacional 23.094/84 | This law declares the southern right whale a natural monument within Argentine jurisdictional waters and subject to the rules established by Law No. 22.351, which regulates the concerning procedures for the declaration of national parks, natural monuments, and national reserves. | Statute | |
| SD - Lost Property - Chapter 43-41. Lost and Found Property. | SDCL § 43-41-1 - 11 | SD ST § 43-41-1 - 11 | These statutes comprise South Dakota's lost property provisions. | Statute |
| NH - Wolf - Chapter 207. General Provisions as to Fish and Game. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 207:61 | NH ST § 207:61 | This New Hampshire statute prohibits the introduction of wolf populations into the state by a person or state agency. | Statute |
| Elephant, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. | 239 So.2d 692 (La.App., 1970) |
A veterinarian agreed to house, transport, and care for an elephant at no charge other than the actual expenses incurred therewith. One evening, the elephant ingested some poison left in its stall by the veterinarian and later died. On appeal of the trial court award to plaintiff, the Court disagreed with defendant’s contention that he, as a gratuitous depositary, could only be held liable for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or fraud. In fact, the civil code in Louisiana, states the burden of a depositary is "that of ordinary care which may be expected of a prudent man." However, an agreement between the parties was found to release Dr. Cane of liability from negligent acts. |
Case | |
| Edmonds v. Cailloux | 2006 WL 398033 (Tex.App.-San Antonio) (Not Reported in S.W.3d) | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2006 WL 398033 (Tex.App.-San Antonio) |
An in-home caretaker of a sick, elderly woman sued the woman, her trust, and her son after the son’s dog knocked her down causing injury. The court of appeals remanded the case because it found a genuine issue as to whether the dog had dangerous propensities and whether the son knew of the dog’s dangerous propensities to justify strict liability. The court did, however, affirm the order of summary judgment as to the negligence claim, where the son was not the caretaker’s employer and thus did not owe her a duty to exercise reasonable care. |
Case |