Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ - Facility Dog - § 8-422. Use of a facility dog in court proceedings; definition | A. R. S. § 8-422 | AZ ST § 8-422 | This Arizona law states that a court shall allow a facility dog to accompany a victim who is under 18 while he or she is testifying in court. A party seeking the use of a facility dog must file a notice with the court that includes the certification of the facility dog, the name of the person or entity who certified the dog and evidence that the facility dog is insured. It is discretionary for the court to allow a facility dog for a victim over the age of 18. | Statute |
| O'Neill v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government | 662 F.3d 723 (C.A.6 (Ky.), 2011) | 2011 WL 5345409 (C.A.6 (Ky.)) |
Dog owners sued city-county government and director of city animal-control agency under § 1983 for violations of Fourteenth Amendment after a warrantless search of home and seizure of their dogs. The Court of Appeals held that the owners did not need a breeder's license because their home was not a “Class A kennel.” It also held that the initial entry into owners' home by undercover animal-control officers was not a Fourth Amendment search because it did not infringe on owners' expectation of privacy. However, the consent-once-removed doctrine did not allow uniformed animal-control officers to enter home without a warrant. |
Case |
| Birmingham Humane Society v. Dickson | 661 So.2d 759 (Ala.,1994) |
The owner of a lost dog found the dog in an animal shelter and asked for its return. The shelter gave it back but sterilized it first despite the owner's wishes that it not be sterilized. The court held the shelter owed a duty to give the dog back without sterilizing it and affirmed a finding of negligence. |
Case | |
| DC - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | DC CODE § 22-1001 - 1015 | DC ST § 22-1001 - 1015 | This D.C. statutory section comprises the anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Whoever knowingly overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly chains, cruelly beats or mutilates, any animal, or knowingly causes such acts, or one who unnecessarily fails to provide proper food, drink, air, light, space, veterinary care, shelter, or protection from the weather, faces imprisonment up to180 days, or a fine of $250, or both. Actions that result in serious bodily injury or death to the animal result in felony prosecution with imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine of $25,000, or both. "Animal" is defined by statute as all living and sentient creatures (human beings excepted). This section also prohibits animal fighting as either a felony (i.e., wagering or conducting the fight) or a misdemeanor (knowingly being present). | Statute |
| US - Tuna Fishing - Legislative History of the MMPA (1988) | 1988 WL 169926 |
This legislative history provides the background and section by section analysis of the 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. As in 1981, the focus of the amendments rests with the mortality of dolphins from the tuna fishing industry. |
Statute | |
| Morgan v. Marquis | 50 A.3d 1 (Me., 2012) | 2012 WL 3206773 (Me., 2012); 2012 ME 106 |
After being bit in the face from a dog she was caring for, the plaintiff sued the dog's owner on the theories of strict liability, negligence and statutory, 7 M.R.S. § 3961(1), liability. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all claims rejecting plaintiff's claim that pit bull dogs are inherently abnormally dangerous dogs. Finding insufficient evidence that the defendant knew his dog was likely to bite someone, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the lower court's decision on the strict liability claim. However, the court vacated the lower court's decision towards the negligence and statutory liability claim because genuine issues of material fact remained. |
Case |
| CA - Dog Fighting - § 597.5. Fighting dogs; felony; punishment; spectators; exceptions | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.5 | CA PENAL § 597.5 | This California statute provides that it is a felony to own, possess, keep, or train any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog, or to cause dogs to fight for the purpose of amusement or gain. Knowingly being a spectator at such an event constitutes a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| VA - Ordinance - § 3.2-6587. Unlawful acts; penalties | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6587 | VA ST § 3.2-6587 | This Virginia statute describes the unlawful acts related to pets that will constitute Class 4 misdemeanors. Included are furnishing a false license application, failing to pay license tax, violating a leash or rabies ordinance, not disposing of dead companion animals per statute, and improperly concealing a pet. Also, a Class 1 misdemeanor may be imposed for falsely impersonating a humane officer or for falsifying a claim for animal damage. | Statute |
| Canada - Alberta - Dangerous Dogs Act | R.S.A. 2000, c. D-3, s. 1 | This set of laws comprises the Alberta, Canada Dangerous Dog Act. Under the Act, a justice may take a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person, or that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control. In either circumstance, if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. Additionally, a person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order. | Statute | |
| Moreland v. Adams | 152 P.3d 558 (Idaho, 2007) | 2007 WL 189336 (Idaho, 2007), 143 Idaho 687 (2007) |
A motorcyclist died when he ran into a calf on the road. His family sued for wrongful death. The court held that the owner of the calf was not liable because of open range immunity. |
Case |