Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tracey v. Solesky | 50 A.3d 1075 (Md., 2012) | 427 Md. 627 (2012) |
In this Maryland case, the Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog and also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. In doing so, the Court now holds that because of the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous." Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that an attacking dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, a person who knows that the dog is of the pit bull breed, including a landlord, is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff who was attacked. The case was remanded to trial court with this modification to common law. |
Case |
| AU - Companion Animals - Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) | Companion Animals Act 1998 |
The Companion Animals Act, came into effect in September 1998. The Act is designed to benefit pets, their owners and the wider community. Part two of the Act provides for the permanent identification and lifetime registration system which came into effect on 1 July 1999. This was designed to greatly assists authorities in returning lost and injured animals to their owners. It provides NSW councils with a more effective means of keeping track of dogs and cats for the benefit of the wider community. The Act also outlines the requirements when a person is the owner of a ‘controlled dog’ or dangerous breed as well as giving the courts and local councils the ability under legislation to declare a dog ‘dangerous’. The Act also covers nuisance dogs and situations where a dog attack has occurred and the civil liability of dog owners. |
Statute | |
| FL - Police animal - 943.69. Care for Retired Police Dogs Program | West's F.S.A. § 943.69 | FL ST § 943.69 | This Florida law enacted in 2022 first recognizes the value that police dogs provide for law enforcement agencies. It then establishes a stable funding source for veterinary care of retired police dogs | Statute |
| IA - Ottumwa - Breed - ARTICLE IV. - DANGEROUS ANIMALS (Pit Bull Ordinance) | OTTUMWA, IA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 7-61 - 7-66 (2011) |
In Ottumwa, Iowa, no person shall keep, shelter, or harbor pit bull terriers, with exceptions, because they are deemed to be dangerous. A violation is a simple misdemeanor resulting in a minimum fine of $100. The prohibition does not apply to dogs participating in a dog show (if properly restrained) or being treated at a veterinary hospital.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| KS - Wildlife - 32-956. Wildlife importation permits | K. S. A. 32-956 | KS ST 32-956 | This Kansas statute declares that the secretary will adopt rules and regulations that prohibit certain wildlife from the waters and land of the state. The statute then lists the criteria for such rules and regulations. | Statute |
| Russell v. Rivera | 780 N.Y.S.2d 699 | 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24172 (N.Y. 2004), 2004 WL 1197344 (N.Y. 2004) |
Passerby sued dog owner for bitten finger. Held: because dog had shown no previous vicious propensities, the owner is not strictly liable, and, the owner was not negligent. Reversed. |
Case |
| State v. West | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2963990 (Table) (Iowa App.) | 741 N.W.2d 823 (Table) |
In this Iowa case, the defendant, West, shot his neighbor's dogs after the dogs were seen running the perimeter of his deer-pen, agitating 15 of his deer in the process. Defendant was subsequently convicted of two counts of animal abuse charges and fifth degree criminal mischief. On appeal, West argued that the section 351.27 (a provision that allows a person to kill a dog caught in the act of worrying livestock) provides an absolute defense to the charges of animal abuse and that he had the right under the facts and this statute to summarily kill Piatak's dogs because they were worrying and chasing his deer. He also contended that the statute has no additional “reasonableness” requirement, and the trial court was incorrect to graft the “reasonably acting” standard from the animal abuse law. The appellate court agreed, finding that section 351.27 provides an absolute defense to a charge of animal abuse under section 717B.2. |
Case |
| WV - Exotic Pet - § 20-2-51. Permit for keeping pets; § 20-2-52. Permits for roadside menageries | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-51; W. Va. Code, § 20-2-52 | WV ST § 20-2-51; WV ST § 20-2-52 | This West Virginia statute provides that the state fish and game director may issue a permit to a person to keep and maintain in captivity as a pet, a wild animal acquired from a commercial dealer or during the legal open season. The fee is charged is two dollars. | Statute |
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals. |
Pleading | ||
| Brown v. Kemp | 506 F.Supp.3d 649 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2020) | Plaintiffs are Wisconsin residents who monitored hunting activity through visual observation and photographic and video documentation. They brought an action against state employees challenging constitutionality of state statute that prohibits a person from interfering with or attempting to interfere with “activity associated with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping.” Plaintiffs claim that after being amended in 2015 to include two or more acts of maintaining a “visual proximity” to, “approaching,” or creating visual or audio of someone engaged in those activities, this prohibition is now overbroad, vague and chills lawful expression in violation of the First Amendment. The District Court held that the residents lacked Article III standing to assert a pre-enforcement as-applied challenge to constitutionality of statute. Further, the affirmative defense provision of statute did not preclude judicial review of statute for overbreadth or vagueness. However, the statute was not overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague. The state employees' motion was granted and the residents' motion was denied. | Case |