Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson v. Douglas | 734 N.Y.S.2d 847 (Mem) (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) | 289 A.D.2d 202 (2001) |
Plaintiff appealed an order denying her claim to emotional distress damages presumably for the death of her dog. The court held that it is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent killing of a dog. |
Case | |||||||
| In re Marriage of Tevis-Bleich | 939 P.2d 966 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997) | 23 Kan.App.2d 982 (1997) | A couple had agreed to a divorce settlement where they each had visitation rights with their dog; the trial court approved of the arrangement. The wife later tried to have that section removed from the decree, but the trial court held that they did not have jurisdiction to make such a change. The appellate court affirmed the decision, which left visitation intact | Case | |||||||
| TX - Service animals - § 434.029. Service Dog Pilot Program for Certain Veterans | V.T.C.A., Government Code § 434.029 | TX GOVT § 434.029 | The commission by rule shall establish a pilot program for veterans to assist in mitigating the symptoms of military service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or military sexual trauma through the provision of a service dog. | Statute | |||||||
| NE - Hunting - Chapter 37. Game and Parks. | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-564 to 37-570 | NE ST § 37-564 to 37-570 | This set of laws represents Nebraska's hunter harassment provisions. The section provides that no person shall knowingly and intentionally interfere or attempt to interfere with another person who is not trespassing and who is lawfully hunting, trapping, or fishing or engaged in activity associated with hunting, trapping, or fishing. A court may enjoin conduct described under the section. The section states that it is an affirmative defense where the alleged violator was not trespassing at the time of the interference and was engaged in lawful activity in conflict with the hunting, trapping, or fishing activity. Any person violating section 37-564 shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor. | Statute | |||||||
| KY - Veterinary - Chapter 321. Veterinarians. | KRS § 321.010 - 990 | KY ST § 321.010 - 990 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |||||||
| Harris v. Barefoot | 704 S.E.2d 282 (N.C. App. 2010) | 2010 WL 3001399 (N.C.App.) , 206 N.C.App. 308 (2010) |
A mail carrier was attacked by two dogs, and sued the dogs’ owners for negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that a dog owner is not liable unless there is evidence that the dog had a vicious propensity and that the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous. |
Case | |||||||
| Tran v. Bancroft | 648 So.2d 314 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.,1995) | Fla. L. Weekly D191 |
In this Florida case, a tenant's next-door neighbor, who was bitten by tenant's dog when it leaped over fence and then attacked the neighbor on property not owned by landlord, brought a personal injury suit against the landlord. The appellate court upheld a motion of summary judgment in favor of the defendant non-owner. The court found that t he existence of a duty in a negligence action is a question to be decided as a matter of law. Although the so-called "dog bite" statute, section 767.04, Florida Statutes (1993) controls actions against a dog's owner, actions against a non-owner must be brought upon a theory of common law liability. Essentially, a landlord has no duty to prevent injuries to third parties caused by a tenant's dog away from leased premises. |
Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 5 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Inc. v. Goldmark Property Management, Inc. | 78 F.Supp.2d 1028 (D.N.D. 2011) | 42 NDLR P 280, 66 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 687 | Plaintiffs bring this action against Goldmark Property Management alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The alleged discriminatory policy is a mandatory application fee, non-refundable deposit, and monthly charge that Goldmark imposes on tenants with disabilities who reside with a non-specially trained assistance animal (i.e. a companion pet). These same fees are waived for tenants with disabilities who reside with a trained assistance animal (i.e. a seeing eye dog). The FHA encompasses all types of assistance animals regardless of training; therefore, Goldmark's policy implicates the FHA. Further, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima face case of discrimination and have presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues for trial on the questions of the necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation and whether Goldmark's alleged objective for the policy is permissible under the FHA and not pretextual. Therefore, Goldmark's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to Plaintiffs' claim of disparate treatment because no proof was offered of a discriminatory intent. It is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. | Case | |||||||
| MN - Dogs, license - 347.14. Unlicensed dogs | M. S. A. § 347.14 | MN ST § 347.14 | This Minnesota statute, amended in 2006, provides that any person may seize, impound, or restrain any unlicensed dog which the person may find running at large. The fact that a dog is without a license attached to a collar shall be presumptive evidence that the dog is unlicensed. An officer is under a duty to seize and impound such animal. | Statute |