|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.
|MA - Initiatives - 2008 Question 3 (dog racing)||Question 3 (2008)||This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. All existing parts of the chapter of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The measure was approved by a margin of 65% to 35 %.||Statute|
|WV - Humane Slaughter - Article 2E. Humane Slaughter of Livestock.||W. Va. Code, §§ 19-2E-1 to 7||WV ST §§ 19-2E-1 to 7||The West Virginia humane slaughter provisions apply to livestock, defined as cattle, swine, sheep or goats. Humane methods of slaughtering livestock include those where the animal is rendered insensible to pain by a single blow, gunshot or by electrical, chemical or other means, or by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries. The section provides a graduating scheme of penalties for violation; a first offense results in a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $100 - $500; a second offense results in a misdemeanor with a fine of $500 - 1,000 and suspension of the license to do business as a slaughtering establishment until the facility is in compliance.||Statute|
|England, Wales & Scotland - Wild animals - Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996||1996 CHAPTER 3||An Act providing protection for wild mammals against certain acts of deliberate harm. “Wild mammal” means any mammal which is not a “protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Schedule 3, Section 13 of the 2006 Act). The following offences are specified in relation to any wild mammal: to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate. The offences require proof of intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.||Statute|
|CT - Research animals - § 10a-150e. Offering for adoption of cat or dog used for conducting research or testing||C.G.S.A. § 10a-150e||CT ST § 10a-150e||
This Connecticut law (effective 2016) states that an institute of higher education must offer for adoption by an animal adoption or animal rescue organization any cat or dog that that was subject to research or testing after the completion of any such research or testing and the dog or cat is no longer needed.
|Long v. Noah's Lost Ark, Inc.||814 N.E.2d 555 (Ohio 2004)||
Owner of lion cub sued animal shelter for refusing to return the cub to him, alleging breach of contract, conversion, replevin, fraud, and intentional misrepresentation. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed. On appeal, the Court affirmed for plaintiff, as plaintiff had established that he was the legal owner of the lion and was entitled to possession.
|Disability and Animals||Policy|
|U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West||602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010)||10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4932||
The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants under the False Claims Act. In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.
|VA - Rabies - § 3.2-6525. Regulations to prevent spread of rabies||Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6525||VA ST § 3.2-6525||This Virginia statute provides that the governing body of any county, city or town may adopt such ordinances, regulations or other measures as may be deemed reasonably necessary to prevent the spread within its boundaries of the disease of rabies, and to regulate and control the running at large within its boundaries of vicious or destructive dogs. Penalties may be provided for the violation of any such ordinances. The governing body of any county that has adopted the urban county executive form of government may adopt an ordinance creating a program for the distribution of oral rabies vaccine within its boundaries to prevent the spread of rabies.||Statute|
|State v. Smith||54 A.3d 638 (Conn.App.)||139 Conn.App. 107||
A defendant was charged and convicted of one count of permitting a dog to roam at large. Upon appeal, the defendant argued the statute he was convicted under was unconstitutionally vague and that he was convicted under insufficient evidence. Defendant contended that simply having his dog off-leash did not mean that it was roaming at large and not under his control where the dog responded to verbal commands. The court rejected both of defendant's arguments, finding that the plain language of the statute clearly prohibits an owner allowing a dog to move freely on another's property unrestrained and not under the owner's direct influence.