Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC - Ordinances - § 67-4.5. Local ordinances | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-4.5 | NC ST § 67-4.5 | This North Carolina statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog laws shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for control of dangerous dogs. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Oliver | 255 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2001) |
Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| McAllister v. Wiegand | 2009CarswellOnt189 |
The plaintiff, a 55-year old woman and recent acquaintance of the defendants, was bitten on the cheek by the defendant's bull mastiff dog, resulting in a spreading infection and loss of all her teeth. The plaintiff was an invited guest in the defendant's home where she had been on 3-4 prior occasions. There was a question over whether the incident arose when the plaintiff startled the dog from sleep by petting it while bending over it, or whether the dog had just awakened when it was petted and bit her. The court found that dog and plaintiff were familiar with each other and there was nothing provocative that should have caused the dog to retaliate. Thus according to Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act, where owners are strictly or absolutely liable for their dogs' injuries to others, the defendants were strictly liable to the plaintiff for her injuries. |
Case | |
| James S. Cable, Plaintiff v. Burrows, Defendant |
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims. |
Pleading | ||
| Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc. | 275 F.R.D. 346 (D.C., 2011) | 2011 WL 3555761 (D.C., 2011) |
Pet owners sued after their pets were seized, detained, injured, or destroyed by the Humane Society. Pet owners’ attempts to certify a class failed because the claims were not typical. The members of the proposed class allegedly suffered a wide range of deprivations, were provided with different kinds of notice, and claimed distinct injuries. The class certification motion was also denied because the proposed members sought individualized monetary relief. |
Case |
| AZ - Breed - § 20-1510. Homeowner's or renter's insurance; dog breeds | A. R. S. § 20-1510 | AZ ST § 20-1510 | This 2022 Arizona law states that the breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for any of the following purposes: (1) underwriting or actuarial processes for determining risk, liability or actual or potential losses related to claims involving dogs under a policy of insurance; or (2) questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information regarding ownership or possession of a dog or the presence of a dog on premises insured or to be insured under a policy of insurance. | Statute |
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | Scotland Act 2020 | Scotland's 2020 legislation increased maximum available penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences, involving domesticated or wild animals, up to 5 years imprisonment and unlimited fines. Serious crimes include animal fighting and causing unnecessary suffering. The Act also prevents those who attack service animals in the course of their duties from relying on self-defence. Further, the Act requires the courts to consider whether disqualification orders are necessary to protect animal welfare, and to provide its reasons for reaching its decision in every case that reaches court. | Statute | |
| OH - Cruelty - Chapter 1717. Humane Societies. County Humane Societies | R.C. § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | OH ST § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | This chapter relates to the formation and powers of humane societies in Ohio. Under the chapter, a county humane society organized under section 1717.05 of the Revised Code may appoint agents, who are residents of the county or municipal corporation for which the appointment is made, for the purpose of prosecuting any person guilty of an act of cruelty to persons or animals. Such agents may arrest any person found violating this chapter or any other law for protecting persons or animals or preventing acts of cruelty. | Statute |
| Becker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. | 416 N.W.2d 906 (Wis.,1987) | 141 Wis.2d 804 (1987) |
Motorist sued dog owner after he was injured in a car accident allegedly caused by dog. The Court of Appeals held that the “injury by dog” statute creates strict liability for any injury or damage caused by dog if owner was negligent (with public policy exceptions). Here, the dog owner was not strictly liable because he was not negligent when his dog escaped from its enclosure. |
Case |
| CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS | Title 6 - ANIMALS, Sections 6.04.010 to 6.20.160 |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
Local Ordinance |