Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xu v. Chen | 2008 CarswellBC 1693 | 2008 BCPC 234 |
The Claimant's six-month old sheltie puppy, "Diamond,” suffered a serious limb injury outside the front yard of the family home. Claimant seeks to recover the veterinarian costs she incurred to treat the dog's injury against Defendants, the owners of the other dog that allegedly attacked claimant’s dog. The court found that there was evidence that Defendant was previously contacted by Animal Control as well as a neighbor about an incident where Angus lunged at another dog. The Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that Angus had manifested a propensity to cause the type of harm occasioned that night. Claimant was 25% liable for the incident where she left Diamond in an unfenced yard that gave other dogs access. The court denied Xu’s claim of $5500 for future medical costs for the care of Diamond because there was no evidence what these would be and the dog was currently living with another family. |
Case | |
| Roach v. Jackson County | 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. 1997) | 151 Or.App. 33 (1997) |
This is an appeal of a county board and circuit court decision ordering destruction of a dog for chasing livestock. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision and held that the dog must be killed in a humane manner. |
Case | |
| WA - Service Dogs - 162-38-105. Removal of dog guides and service animals. | Wash. Admin. Code 162-38-105 | WAC 162-38-105 | This Washington regulation concerns trained guide dogs or service animals. It is an unfair practice to request that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed, unless the person can show: (a) that the presence, behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal constitutes an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to property or other persons; and (b) a reasonable attempt to eliminate the behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal that constitutes an unreasonable risk fails. | Administrative | |
| Galindo v. State | --- S.W.3d ----, 2018 WL 4128054 (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2018) | Appellant Galindo pleaded guilty to cruelty to nonlivestock animals and a deadly-weapon allegation from the indictment. The trial court accepted his plea, found him guilty, and sentenced him to five years in prison. The facts stem from an incident where Galindo grabbed and then stabbed a dog with a kitchen knife. The indictment indicated that Galindo also used and exhibited a deadly weapon (a knife) during both the commission of the offense and flight from the offense. On appeal, Galindo argues that the deadly-weapon finding is legally insufficient because the weapon was used against a "nonhuman." Appellant relies on the recent decision of Prichard v. State, 533 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017), in which the Texas Court of Appeals held that a deadly-weapon finding is legally insufficient where the sole recipient of the use or exhibition of the deadly weapon is a nonhuman. The court here found the facts distinguishable from Prichard. The court noted that Prichard left open the possibility that a deadly-weapons finding could occur when the weapon was used or exhibited against a human during the commission of an offense against an animal. Here, the evidence introduced at defendant's guilty plea and testimony from sentencing and in the PSIR are sufficient to support the trial court's finding on the deadly-weapons plea (e.g., the PSI and defense counsel stated that Galindo first threatened his girlfriend with the knife and then cut the animal in front of his girlfriend and her son). The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. | Case | ||
| WA - Wolf - Chapter 16.001. Wolf-Livestock Management | West's RCWA 16.76.005 - .030 | WA ST 16.76.005 - .030 | These statutes create the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management grant within the department of agriculture. Further, a four-member advisory board is established to advise the department on the expenditure of the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management grant funds. The board must help direct funding for the deployment of nonlethal deterrence resources, including human presence, and locally owned and deliberately located equipment and tools. In addition, the northeast Washington wolf-livestock management account is created as a nonappropriated account in the custody of the state treasurer. | Statute | |
| NY - Dangerous animal - § 209-cc. Notification of presence of wild animals and dangerous dogs | McKinney's General Municipal Law § 209-cc | NY GEN MUN § 209-cc | New York state law requires anyone in possession of dangerous dogs and dangerous wild animals (which include non-human primates, non-domesticated dogs and cats, bears, venomous, constrictors and python snakes, and certain crocodiles) to report the presence of that animal to the clerk of the city, town, or village in which the animal resides. The report must be filed by April 1st every year and must list all of the physical locations where the animal may be kept. The clerk must then notify all local police, fire, and emergency medical service departments of the presence of that animal. Any person who fails to report the presence may be fined up to $250 dollars for the first offense and $1,000 dollars for each subsequent offense. Zoos and other U.S. Department of Agriculture-licensed exhibitors are exempt from the reporting requirement. | Statute | |
| MI - Hunting/Recreational Trespass - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.73101 - 73302 | These sections describe the Department of Natural Resources ability to enforce and prosecute persons who enter upon the land of another, who remove or destroy signs or posters or enclose someone else's land without permission. These sections also describe the potential liability of landowners. | Statute | ||
| State v. Long | 991 P.2d 102 (Wash.App. Div. 2,2000) | 98 Wash.App. 669 (Wash.App. Div. 2,2000) |
Defendant shot and killed two hunting dogs, estimated to be worth $5,000 to $8,000 each, who were chasing deer across his property. The defendant was later convicted by the jury under the first degree malicious mischief felony for “knowingly and maliciously ... [causing] physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars.” On appeal, the court upheld the jury’s conviction because the defendant had no right to kill the dogs chasing deer across his property and because the prosecution was allowed to charge under the first degree malicious mischief felony for “knowingly and maliciously ... [causing] physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars.” |
Case | |
| DeVaul v. Carvigo Inc. | 526 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988) | 138 A.D.2d 669 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988) |
This New York case involved a dog bite victim who brought an action against the owner to recover for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County entered judgment in favor of owner. On appeal with the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the court held that the viciousness of German shepherd dogs was not appropriate subject of judicial notice. The court found that there is no authority for the proposition that judicial notice should be taken "as to the ferocity of any particular type of domestic animal." |
Case | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating | 2007 WL 408325 (F.R.) |
Establishes the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. |
Administrative |