Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safford Animal Hospital v. Blain | 580 P.2d 757 (Ariz.App.,1978) | 119 Ariz. 296 (1978) |
Appellant animal hospital sought review of the judgment entered against it for the injuries suffered by an individual after a cow escaped from the hospital and struck the man who owned the house to which the cow had run as the man tried to help the veterinarian secure the animal. The court held that appellant's liability is predicated upon its position as an owner or occupier of land whose duty with regard to the keeping of domestic animals is circumscribed under a bailment theory. Further the court held that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that appellant negligent under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. |
Case |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6551. Notification by individuals finding companion animals; penalty | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6551 | VA ST § 3.2-6551 | This recent Virginia statute provides that any individual who finds a companion animal and provides care shall, within 48 hours, make a reasonable attempt to notify the owner of the companion animal, if the owner can be ascertained from any tag, license, collar, tattoo, or other form of identification and notify the pound that serves the locality where the companion animal was found. Any individual who violates this section may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50 per companion animal. | Statute |
| OH - Breeder - Chapter 956. Dog Breeding Kennels; Dog Retailers. | R.C. § 956.01 - 99 | OH ST § 956.01 - 99 | This section represents Ohio's commercial dog breeding laws. Under the chapter, a "high volume breeder" is defined as an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains six or more breeding dogs and: (1) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells five or more adult dogs or puppies in any calendar year to dog brokers or pet stores; (2) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells forty or more puppies in any calendar year to the public; or (3) Keeps, houses, and maintains, at any given time in a calendar year, more than forty puppies that are under four months of age, that have been bred on the premises of the establishment, and that have been primarily kept, housed, and maintained from birth on the premises of the establishment. High volume breeders have additional duties under the law related to well-being of the dogs kept. The chapter also details requirements for licenses and/or registrations for high volume breeders, rescues, and dog brokers. Inspections are also outlined in the chapter, with high volume breeders having a requirement of at least one inspection annually. Penalties for violation of provisions, availability of injunctions, and revocation of licenses is also covered. | Statute |
| BROWN v. TOWN OF SOUTHBURY | 53 Conn. 212, 1 A. 819 (1885) | 53 Conn. 212, 1 A. 819 |
This Connecticut decision in 1885 held consequential losses as a result of the harm to an animal (a horse) to be a proper element of damages in addition to the fair market value of the animal. Specifically, the court applied fair market value, but disallowed consequential damages for lost profits where plaintiff failed to show an effort to mitigate such damages. |
Case |
| Argentina - Endangered species - Ley Nº 24.702, 1996 | Ley 24.702 | Ley Nº 24.702 establishes that various species of andean deer will be declared natural monuments. This species correspond to: Hippocamelus bisulcus (huemul, güemul or guamul (araucano); shoan, shoam or shonen (tehuelche), Andean deer, southern huemul, trula or trulá, Chilean huemul, hueque, deer (southern Patagonia) and Hippocamelus antisensis (tarusch, taruga, taruka or chacu (quichua), deer, northern or northern huemul, huemul, fallow deer, cerrero deer, huemul cordillerano, huemul peruano, peñera). Ley Nº 24.702, also instructs the National Park Administration and the Directorate of Wildlife and Flora of the Nation to work together on the management plan for the species in the areas of its jurisdiction, making sure it is in accordance to the national faunal policy. | Statute | |
| TN - Expert - § 29-26-115. Burden of proof; expert witnesses | T. C. A. § 29-26-115 | TN ST § 29-26-115 | This Tennessee statute provides the requirements for the claimant's burden of proof under malpractice actions, including, inter alia, the proof that the defendant's actions fell below the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community, proximate cause, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's actions were negligent. | Statute |
| NH - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 427. Livestock and Meat Inspection. Humane Slaughter | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 427:33 - 427:37 | NH ST § 427:33 - 427:37 | These laws comprise New Hampshire's humane slaughter provisions. A humane method is defined as one where the animal is rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or shot of a mechanical instrument or by electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Ritual slaughter required by the ritual of the Jewish faith, whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain is also allowed. Any slaughterer who violates this subdivision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Volosen v. State | 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App., 2007) | 2007 WL 1752803 (Tex. Crim. App.) |
Appellant killed neighbor's miniature dachshund with a maul when he found it among his chickens in his backyard, and he defends that Health & Safety Code 822 gave him legal authority to do so. At the bench trial, the judge found him guilty of animal cruelty, but on appeal the court reversed the conviction because it found that the statute gave him legal authority to kill the attacking dog. However, this court held that appellant did not meet his burden of production to show that the statute was adopted in Colleyville, TX and found as a matter of fact that the dog was not "attacking." |
Case |