Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT - Trusts - § 75-2-1001. Honorary trusts--Trusts for pets | U.C.A. 1953 § 75-2-1001 | UT ST § 75-2-1001 | This Utah statute provides that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Trusts under this section shall be liberally construed to presume against the merely precatory or honorary nature of the disposition, and to carry out the general intent of the transferor. | Statute | |
| NY - Exotic Pets - Chapter 69 Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 370 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 370 | This New York law provides that any person who owns or possesses a wild animal or reptile capable of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being, who fails to exercise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal or reptile, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The punishment for violation is imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both. The second part of the law imposes strict liability upon owners of dangerous wild animals. | Statute | |
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4002.23. License qualifications for private trainer | 9 NY ADC 4002.23 | 9 NYCRR 4002.23 | A private trainer's license may be issued to an applicant who has an ownership or lease interest in a horse exceeding 50 percent if that person has been a licensed owner for one year, has three years of experience with Thoroughbred racehorses, and passes written and practical exams. | Administrative | |
| Graham v. Notti | 196 P.3d 1070 (Wash.,2008) |
The court held that the adoption of a dog from an animal shelter was invalid unless the dog was found in "the city" pursuant to the shelter's contract with the local government. |
Case | ||
| Faraci v. Urban | 101 A.D.3d 1753 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.) | 2012 WL 6720938 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.); 957 N.Y.S.2d 792 |
In this New York case, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries his son sustained after the child was bitten by a dog in a house owned by defendant Urban, but occupied by Defendant Buil (the dog's owner). Defendant Urban appeals an order denying her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant Urban failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the dog did not have vicious tendencies because defendant's own submissions showed that the dog had previously growled at people coming to the door. However, summary judgment was appropriate here because the evidence failed to show that defendant knew or should have known of the dog's alleged vicious propensities. |
Case | |
| Webb v. Avon | [2017] EWHC 3311 | This case addressed the power of the court to make a contingent destruction order under Section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). These orders allow dangerous dogs to be released and kept under strict conditions. The court held that the 19991 Act is not clear as to the breadth of who these conditions apply to, but considered that dangerous dogs may only be released to their owners or other persons properly identified as being in charge. The case was remitted to the Crown Court for further determination. The court also addressed other aspects of the 1991 Act along with the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. | Case | ||
| RI - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 21. Exemption from Liability Arising from Equine Activities | Gen. Laws, 1956 § 4-21-1 to 4 | RI ST § 4-21-1 to 4 | This Rhode Island section provides that an equine professional, or any other person, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities unless the equine activity sponsor, professional or other person are demonstrated to have failed to exercise due care under the circumstances towards the participant. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute | |
| NC - Licenses - Chapter 160A. Cities and Towns. | N.C.G.S.A. § 160A-212 | NC ST § 160A-212 | This North Carolina statute provides that a city shall have power to levy an annual license tax on the privilege of keeping any domestic animal, including dogs and cats, within the city. However, this section shall not limit the city's authority to enact related ordinances. | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Kneller | 999 A.2d 608 (Pa., 2010) | 2010 PA Super 122, 2010 WL 2765402 (Pa.) |
Kneller appealed from a conviction of criminal conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals after she gave an acquaintance a gun and asked him to shoot a dog. The Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that “The Animal Destruction Method Authorization Law” (ADMA) and the “Dog Law” are not ambiguous. In addition, the deadly weapon enhancement applies to an owner who is convicted of cruelty to animals and used a firearm to kill it. |
Case | |
| Eureka Township v. Petter | Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2017 WL 3863144 (Minn.Ct.App. 2017) | 2017 WL 3863144 | In this case, the Township brought action against property owners to enjoin the owners from possessing exotic animals on the property, operating an animal exhibition on the property, and operating a business pelting exotic animals on the property. The District Court invalidated the township's exotic animal ordinance as conflicting with state statute, determined that an animal exhibition was not a permissible use under the township's zoning ordinance, and permanently enjoined the owners from operating an animal exhibition and conducting any retail sales, except for horticultural products produced on the property. This court held that the exotic animals ordinance did not conflict with state statute nor was it preempted. Further, this court held that the property owners' grandfathered possession and exhibition of exotic animals was limited to one wolf; animal control officer exception to exotic animal possession was limited to temporary possession of exotic animals in conjunction with owner's work as an animal control officer; township was not estopped from enforcing its exotic animal ordinance; and interpreting zoning ordinance's language to require sale of horticultural products from the land itself was not inherently unreasonable. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; motion dismissed. | Case |