Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christensen v. Lundsten | 863 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2008 WL 4118071 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.) | 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28320 |
In this New York case, the parent of child injured by a dog brought an action seeking to have the dog declared a “dangerous dog” under the relevant law. The Court conducted a trial of the “dangerous dog” petition filed and rendered an oral decision that declared the respondents' Chesapeake Bay Retriever “Nellie” to be a dangerous dog under New York Agricultural and Markets Law § 121. The parties contested the appropriateness of a finding of “negligence” and “strict liability” and the entry of judgment. The District Court held that the court would not resolve issue of negligence because the issue was not properly joined for disposition; however, the owners were strictly liable for child's unreimbursed medical expenses. |
Case | ||||||
| IL - Police dog - Act 82. Police Dog Retirement Act | 510 I.L.C.S. 82/1 - 5 | IL ST CH 510 § 82/1 - 5 | The Police Dog Retirement Act, effective on January 1, 2017, states that a public service dog that is no longer fit for service shall be offered by the law enforcement agency to the officer or employee who had custody and control of the animal during its service. This includes a search and rescue dog, service dog, accelerant detection canine, or other dog that is in use by a county, municipal, or State law enforcement agency. If the officer or employee does not wish to keep the dog, the dog may be offered to another officer or employee in the agency, or to a non-profit organization or a no-kill animal shelter. | Statute | ||||||
| Rogers v. Teignbridge District Council |
A planned event called "The Creepy Crawly Show" was to have been held at a racecourse and to have involved the display and sale of small exotic animals by a number of different breeders, dealers and enthusiasts. The event's organizer applied to the local council for a pet shop licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The application was refused on the ground that the event was prohibited by section 2 of the Act which states that a person is guilty of an offence if he "carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, [or] at a stall or barrow in a market". The organizer's appeal to the local magistrates court was dismissed. Held: the holding of the event would have involved the carrying on a business of selling pets in a "public place". It would also have involved the selling of animals in a market. The event was therefore prohibited by section 2 and that it would have been unlawful for the local authority to have licensed it. |
Case | ||||||||
| ND - Hunting - Chapter 20.1-01. General Provisions. | NDCC 20.1-01-31 | ND ST 20.1-01-31 | This law reflects North Dakota's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person may intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife on public or private land by another or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife on public or private land for the purpose of disrupting a lawful hunt. Also, no person may remove with or tamper with a legally set trap. This section does not apply to any incidental interference arising from lawful activity by public or private land users or to landowners or operators interfering with hunters on land owned or operated by that individual. | Statute | ||||||
| KS - Abandon - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-835 | KS ST § 47-835 | This Kansas statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian that is unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten (10) days after written notice by registered or certified mail is given, shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society, or dog pound or disposed of as the custodian may deem proper. The giving of notice to the owner of record immunizes the veterinarian from liability. | Statute | ||||||
| RI - Importation, pets - 40-05-1.8. Importation of Dogs and Cats for the Purpose of Rescue, Shelter, Foster Care, | 250 RI ADC 40-05-1.8 | This Rhode Island regulation provides that any entities that import a dog or cat for rescue, adoption, foster care, brokering, and/or remote sales must register with the Department via the submittal of an application form provided by the Department. | Administrative | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| State v. Gerard | 832 N.W.2d 314 (Minn.App.,2013) | 2013 WL 3155477 (Minn.App.,2013) |
This case considers whether the trial court erred when it dismissed the felony count of unjustifiably killing an animal based on lack of probable cause. The incident stems from the killing of the neighbors' cat with a shotgun by defendant-respondent. At trial, he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause that was accompanied by a notarized affidavit of the responding police deputy stating the shooting of the cat was "justified." The trial court dismissed the complaint finding insufficient evidence that respondent had unjustifiably killed the cat. On appeal, the court found the district court's reliance on the deputy's lay opinion was improper. The court found it was within the jury's province to determine whether respondent's actions were justified or unjustified based on the evidence at trial. |
Case | ||||||
| Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri | 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 (Cal.App. 2 Dist, 2012.) | 208 Cal.App.4th 1342; 2012 WL 3727604 (Cal.App. 2 Dist, 2012.) |
Defendant Luri appeals an injunction against her to return a foster dog that she failed to have spayed in accordance with an agreement between her and Take Me Home pet rescue organization. In finding that the trial court did not err in issuing the injunction, the court found that Take Me Home had a reasonable likelihood for success on the merits of its breach of contract claim because the original agreement was amended by a separate oral agreement that the dog would be spayed after recovering from a bout of mange. Further, in assessing the balance of harms, the court found that it favored Take Me Home. While Luri can either spay the dog or adopt a new one, the organization's "entire existence depends on its ability to place pets that it obtains from shelters in adoptive homes." |
Case | ||||||
| MO - Carthage - Breed - Sec. 4-5.1. Pit bulldogs prohibited. | CARTHAGE, MO., CODE § 4-5.1 |
In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city. |
Local Ordinance |