Results
Displaying 5861 - 5870 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolff v. State | 87 N.E.3d 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) | 2017 WL 5163662 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2017) | This Indiana case addresses the status of animals seized in conjunction with a criminal animal cruelty case. Specifically, the appeal addresses whether the trial court erred in granting a local animal rescue the authority to determine disposition of the seized animals. The animals were seized after county authorities received complaints of animal cruelty and neglect on defendant's property in late 2016. As a result of the charges, five horses, two mules, and two miniature donkeys were impounded and placed with a local animal rescue. Following this, the state filed a notice with the court that estimated costs of continuing care for the impounded animals. About a month later, the state filed an Amended Motion to Determine Forfeiture/Disposition of Animals, requesting the trial court issue an order terminating defendant's ownership rights in the animals. Alternatively, the state requested that defendant could seek to have his posted bond money apportioned to cover the costs associated with the animals' care. The court ultimately entered an order that allowed the rescue agency full authority to determine disposition of the animals after defendant failed to respond. In his current appeal of this order, defendant first claims that the trial court erred in giving the animal rescue such authority because defendant paid $20,000 in bail. The appellate court found that this money was used to secure defendant's release from jail and he did not request that the jail bond be used for the care of the animals. The court found that the legislature clearly intended the bail and bond funds are used for "separate and distinct purposes," so there was no way for the trial court to automatically apply this money to the animal care costs. Defendant had to affirmatively exercise his rights concerning the disposition of the animals pending trial, which he failed to do. As to defendant's other issue concerning an investigation and report by a state veterinarian, the appellate court found defendant waived this issue prior to appeal. The decision was affirmed. | Case | |
| OR - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | O. R. S. § 167.305 - 439 | OR ST § 167.305 - 439 | These Oregon statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty laws. "Animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or fish. The term "assault," which is generally associated with human crimes, is used to define certain crimes against animals. Animal abuse may be elevated to a felony offense if the act was committed directly in front of a minor child or if the perpetrator was previously convicted of domestic violence. | Statute | |
| MO - Veterinary - Chapter 340. Veterinarians. | V. A. M. S. 340.010 - 405 | MO ST 340.010 - 350 | 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 | |
| Hitchcock v. Conklin | 669 N.E.2d 563 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) | 107 Ohio App.3d 850 (1995) |
Appellant dog owners sought review of the decision from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), which granted the motion to dismiss filed by appellee veterinarian on the basis that the breach of contract and negligence action filed against the veterinarian was barred by the one-year statute of limitations on malpractice claims under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.11(A). On appeal, the court reversed and held that § 2305.11(A) applied only to physicians, attorneys, and other professional specifically delineated in the statute, not veterinarians. The court reversed the dismissal of the owners' breach of contract and negligence action filed against the veterinarian and remanded for further proceedings. |
Case | |
| Tracey v. Solesky | 50 A.3d 1075 (Md., 2012) | 427 Md. 627 (2012) |
In this Maryland case, the Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog and also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. In doing so, the Court now holds that because of the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous." Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that an attacking dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, a person who knows that the dog is of the pit bull breed, including a landlord, is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff who was attacked. The case was remanded to trial court with this modification to common law. |
Case | |
| NH - Importation of Wildlife - Chapter Fis 800. The Importation, Possession and Use of All Wildlife | NH ADC FIS 803.01 - .14 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 803.01 - .14 | These New Hampshire regulations require an importation permit for any controlled species that are imported into the state; these regulations also state that a permit is not required for a non-controlled species, which are listed in the regulations, and that a prohibited species, which are also listed in the regulations, cannot be imported into the state with or without a permit. The regulations also state the requirements for obtaining an importation permit, the provisions for importing certain species, the pathological standards for inspecting imported fish, and what needs to be included in the form to obtain an importation permit. | Administrative | |
| CT - Vehicle - Title 14. Motor Vehicles. Use of the Highway by Vehicles. Gasoline | C.G.S.A. § 14-226 | Any person who knowingly operates a motor vehicle and causes injury or death to a dog shall stop and render assistance and shall immediately report such injury or death to the dog's owner or the owner's representative. If unable to ascertain and locate such owner or representative, the injury or death shall be reported to a police officer. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction. | Statute | ||
| Com. v. Trefry | 51 N.E.3d 502 (Mass. App. Ct., 2016), review denied, 475 Mass. 1104, 60 N.E.3d 1173 (2016) | 89 Mass. App. Ct. 568 (Mass. App. 2016), 2016 WL 3262665 | The Defendant Trefry, left her two sheepdogs, Zach and Kenji, alone on the property of her condemned home. An animal control officer noticed that Kenji was limping badly and took him to a veterinarian. Both dogs were removed from the property three days later. The Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating statute G.L. c. 140, § 174E(f ), which protects dogs from cruel conditions and inhumane chaining or tethering. The Defendant appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable held that: (1) neither outside confinement nor confinement in general is an element of subjecting dogs to cruel conditions as prohibited by statute; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support finding that the defendant subjected her dogs to cruel conditions. The Appeals Court reasoned that the defendant subjected her dogs to cruel conditions in violation of the statute because by the time they were removed, the dogs were “incredibly tick-infested” and “matted,” and Kenji had contracted Lyme disease and sustained a soft shoulder injury to his leg. An animal control officer also testified that the defendant's home was cluttered on the inside and overgrown on the outside. The yard also contained items that posed a danger to the animals. There was also sufficient evidence to infer that, while the dogs could move in and out of the condemned house, the dogs were confined to the house and fenced-in yard. The area to which the dogs were confined presented with every factor listed in § 174E(f)(1) as constituting “filthy and dirty” conditions. Also, "Zach's and Kenji's emotional health was further compromised by being left alone virtually all day every day" according to the court. Therefore the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed. | Case | |
| NM - Hunting - § 17-3-49. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited; penalties | NMSA 1978, § 17-3-49 | NM ST § 17-3-49 | This law makes it illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting, provide facilities for that purpose, create or advertise such software or websites, or keep an animal confined for computer-assisted remote hunting. Violation also leads to a revocation of licenses issued by the state game commission. | Statute | |
| MD - Pet Injuries, Damages - § 11-110. Damages for injuries or death caused to pets | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 11-110 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 11-110 | This Maryland statute provides that the measure of damages for tortious injury or death to a pet is the market value of the pet before the injury, or the cost of veterinary care that does not exceed $7,500. | Statute |