Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ranwez v. Roberts | 601 S.E.2d 449 (Ga.App., 2004) | 2004 WL 1405703 (Ga.App.), 268 Ga.App. 80 |
In this Georgia case, after sustaining severe injuries inflicted during a vicious attack by four pit bulls, Helene Ranwez sued her tenant neighbor and the owner of the rental property, Scott Roberts. The crucial question in this case was whether an out-of-possession landlord has liability for a tenant's dog bite. Roberts contended that because he had relinquished possession and control of the premises to his tenant, Glenn Forrest, he could not be held liable for Ranwez's injuries as a matter of law. In affirming the trial court's decision, the appellate court held that an out-of-possession landlord's tort liability to third persons is subject only to the statutory provisions of OCGA § 44-7-14, which makes it clear that a landlord who relinquishes possession of the premises cannot be liable to third parties for damages arising from the negligence of the tenant. |
Case |
| CO - Disaster - Part 6. Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act | C. R. S. A. § 25-1.5-601 - 613 (formerly C. R. S. A. § 12-29.3-101 to 113) | CO ST § 25-1.5-601 - 613 | The Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act applies to registered volunteer health practitioners and who provide health or veterinary services for a host entity during an emergency. | Statute |
| Anderson v. City of Camden | 2011 WL 4703104 (2011) |
Defendant Animal Control officers took Plaintiffs' two dogs pursuant to a pick-up order issued by a Magistrate of Kershaw County. The two dogs had a history of attacking other dogs and of running loose. Plaintiffs filed Fourth Amendment and South Carolina Tort Claims Act claims against Defendants. Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional law, and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim. |
Case | |
| Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne | 538 F.3d 124 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2008) | 2008 WL 3542887 |
The Fund for Animals and others brought an action challenging public resource depredation order (PRDO) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning a species of migratory bird known as the double-crested cormorant. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding that the depredation order did not violate MBTA because the Order restricts the species, locations, and means by which takings could occur, thereby restricting the discretion exercised by third parties acting under the Order. Further, the depredation order did not conflict with international treaties (specifically the Mexico Convention) because the Treaty only mandates a close season only for game birds, which the parties agree do not include cormorants. Finally, the agency's adoption of the order was not arbitrary and capricious and complied with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). |
Case |
| FL - Exhibition - Deformed Animals - Chapter 877. Miscellaneous Crimes. | West's F. S. A. § 877.16 | FL ST § 877.16 | This law makes it illegal to exhibit any deformed, mutilated or disfigured animal for compensation. | Statute |
| In re: DAVID M. ZIMMERMAN | 57 Agric. Dec. 1038 (1998) | 1998 WL 799196 (U.S.D.A.) | Ongoing pattern of violations establishes "history of previous violations" for purposes of 7 USCS § 2149(b), and it is appropriate to view evidence as establishing prior violations in determining appropriate level of civil penalty. | Case |
| CA - Dog, tether - § 122335. Animal control, agricultural operation, person, and reasonable period | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122335 | CA HLTH & S § 122335 | This California law is the state's dog tethering provision. Under the law, no person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object. A person may tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog, but it must be no longer than is necessary for the person to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained for a reasonable period. A person who violates this chapter is guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor. An animal control may issue a correction warning to a person who violates this chapter, requiring the owner to correct the violation, in lieu of an infraction or misdemeanor, unless the violation endangers the health or safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the activity. | Statute |
| VA - Education - § 22.1-200.01. Alternatives to animal dissection | VA Code Ann. § 22.1-200.01 | VA ST § 22.1-200.01 | This Virginia law states that local school divisions shall provide students with alternatives to animal dissection techniques. The Board of Education shall establish guidelines to be implemented by local school divisions regarding such alternative dissection techniques. In addition, those guidelines must provide notification to students and parents of the option to decline participation in animal dissection. | Statute |
| State v. Pless | 646 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 2007) | 282 Ga. 58 (2007) |
In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court found that the evidence showed that in the months prior to the July 14 and August 1 incidents, Pless's dogs were repeatedly found loose in neighbors' yards and garages. Accordingly, evidence supported the conviction on the charge of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance under § 3-4-7(5). ("Public nuisance" is defined, among other things, as any animal which "[i]s found repeatedly at large."). On certiorari review, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded the issue was not properly before the Court of Appeals and there was no authority for the court to address it sua sponte. |
Case |
| CT - Disaster - Evacuation of Animals During Disasters - Chapter 517. | C. G. S. A. § 28-1 | CT ST § 28-1 | In Connecticut, civil preparedness includes activities designed to minimize the effects upon the civilian population in the event of major disaster or emergency. Such measures include the nonmilitary evacuation of the civilian population, pets and service animals. | Statute |