Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA - Facility dog - § 284. Facility dogs; use in court; procedure | LSA-R.S. 15:284 | LA R.S. 15:284 | This 2018 Louisiana law allows a witness who is under 18 or who has a developmental disability (as defined) to have a facility dog, if available, accompany him or her while testifying in court. Additionally, the court may allow any witness who does not meet those criteria to have a facility dog, if available, while testifying in court. Under this section, a "facility dog" means a dog that is certified and a graduate of an assistance dog organization that is accredited by Assistance Dogs International or a similar internationally recognized organization whose main purpose is to grant accreditation to assistance dog organizations based on standards of excellence in all areas of assistance dog acquisition, training, and placement. | Statute | |
| Stephens v. State | Stephans v. State, 3 So. 458 (Miss. 1887) (Arnold J. plurality). |
The Mississippi Cruelty to Animal statute was applied to the Defendant who killed several hogs that were eating his crops. The lower court refused to instruct the Jury that they should find him not guilty, if they believed that he killed the hogs while depredating on his crop and to protect it, and not out of a spirit of cruelty to the animals. The Supreme Court of Mississippi found it to be an error by the court to refuse to give such instructions because if the defendant was not actuated by a spirit of cruelty, or a disposition to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering, he was not guilty under the statute. |
Case | ||
| Mellin v. Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc. | 115 A.3d 799 (N.H., 2015) | 167 N.H. 544 (2015) | This is an appeal brought by Mr. Mellin because his insurer, Northern, would not cover damages to Mellin's condominium caused by the odor of cat urine emanating from another tenant's condominium. This court reverses the lower court by deciding that the policy included pollution exclusion, but was ambiguous in whether that encompassed cat urine odor, so Mellin's claim is not precluded. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Two of the five judges dissent, concluding that the word 'pollutant' was defined and excluded cat urine odor. | Case | |
| Frank v. Animal Haven, Inc. | 107 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2013.) | 967 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04711 |
Plaintiff was bitten by the dog that she adopted from Animal Haven, Inc. and sued that entity for personal injuries stemming from the bite. In affirming the decision to dismiss the complaint, this court noted that the adopting parties signed a contract a the time of adoption where they undertook a "lifetime commitment" for the responsible care of the dog. While the contract stipulated that Animal Haven had the right to have the dog returned if the plaintiff breached the contract, this did not reserve a right of ownership of the dog. Further, the contract also explicitly relieved Animal Haven of liability once the dog was in the possession of the adoptive parties. |
Case | |
| VT - Endangered Species - Chapter 123. Protection of Endangered Species | 10 V.S.A. § 5401 - 10 | VT ST T 10 § 5401 - 10 | These Vermont statutes set out the state's endangered species provisions, including the related definitions, rules for listing species, and regulations for establishing the committees. Violation of the provisions against taking incur criminal enforcement and restitution. Interestingly, there is a provision that provides for the location of listed endangered species to be kept confidential. | Statute | |
| OK - Dog bite - Oklahoma Dog Bite Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 41 - 47 | OK ST T. 4 § 41 - 47 | These statutes comprise Oklahoma's Dangerous Dog Laws. The state imposes strict liability for dog bites; "the owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be." Further, any person may lawfully kill a dog who is chasing that person's livestock. An owner of a dog that has been adjudged "dangerous" must register the dog, enclose the dog except when out on a leash with muzzle, and post $50,000 in liability insurance. An owner who does not follow the provisions not only faces the confiscation of his or her dog, but may also be subject to a one-year misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| US - Service Animals - Part 35. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local | 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 to .139 | The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The section defines "service animal" as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. | Administrative | ||
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 21.676, 1977 | LEY Nº 21.676 | Ley Nº 21.676 approves the "Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals" adopted by the Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals held in London in 1972 and signed by the Argentine Republic on June 9, 1972. | Statute | ||
| Muela v. Gomez | 343 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 2011) | 2011 WL 648940 (Tex.App.-El Paso) |
Defendant Samuel Muela appeals a judgment for damages in the amount of $30,279.45 after plaintiff was attacked by a pit bull. Samuel contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he owned or possessed the pit bull and thus had no knowledge of its vicious propensities. The court concluded that there is no evidence that Samuel lived at his parents' trailer or owned the pit bull. Additionally, while Samuel did visit his parents' house to feed their pet dog, there was no direct evidence that he had ever seen the pit bull or knew of it. The court reversed and rendered judgment that Gomez take nothing against Samuel. |
Case | |
| State v. Taffet (unpublished) | Not Reported in A.2d, 2010 WL 771954 (N.J.Super.A.D.) |
The State of New Jersey, through the Borough of Haddonfield, appeals from the final judgment of the Law Division, which reversed the finding of the municipal court that defendant's dog is a potentially dangerous dog pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:19-23(a) as well as the imposition of certain measures to mitigate any future attacks. Defendant, a resident of Haddonfield, owns, breeds, and shows four Rhodesian Ridgebacks kept at his home in a residential neighborhood. The Superior Court concluded that the Law Division's did not properly defer to the trial court's credibility determinations and were not supported by sufficient credible evidence. The court found that the dog's dual attacks causing bodily injury to two individuals were undisputed, and along with evidence of more recent intimidating activity in the neighborhood, the municipal court could have reasonably concluded that the dog posed a more serious threat to cause bodily injury to another.
|
Case |