Results

Displaying 5891 - 5900 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Salinas v. Martin 166 Cal.App.4th 404 2008 WL 3974426 (Cal. App. 1 Dist.), 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 735

Construction worker brought negligence action against homeowner for injuries sustained by another contractor's pit-bull dog, after homeowner had given the contractor permission to allow the dog to run loose on homeowner's property. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California, held that a landlord does not generally owe a duty to protect third parties from injuries by his or her tenant's dangerous dog without actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and ability to prevent or control the harm. However, a homeowner, who maintains possession of and control over the premises, and thus is not acting as a landlord, is not required to have actual knowledge of a dog's dangerous propensities to owe a duty of care to his or her invitees.  

Case
MN - Research animals - 135A.191. Research dogs and cats M.S.A. § 135A.191 MN ST § 135A.191 This Minnesota law states that a publicly-funded higher education facility that confines dogs or cats for science, education, or research purposes and plans on euthanizing a dog or cat for other than science, education, or research purposes must first offer the dog or cat to an animal rescue organization. Statute
ND - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 36-21.1) NDCC 36-21.1-01 to 15; § 36–21.2–01 to 15; § 12.1-20-02, 12.1-20-12 ND ST 36-21.1-01 to 15; § 36–21.2–01 to 15; 12.1-20-02, 12.1-20-12 This North Dakota section comprises the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Statute
KY - Endangered Species - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. KRS § 150.180, 183, 260, 280, 990 KY ST § 150.180, 183, 260, 280, 990 Under Kentucky law, no person shall import, transport, possess for resale or sell any endangered species of wildlife. The term "endangered species" means any species of wildlife seriously threatened with worldwide extinction or in danger of being extirpated from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Violation of the Act may result in fines or possible imprisonment depending on the statutory section violated, and license sanctions may also result. Statute
Commonwealth v. Austin 846 A.2d 798 (Pa. 2004)

Defendant appeals his conviction of harboring a dangerous dog.  The Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the conviction, and also holding that serious injuries are not a prerequisite for convicting a defendant for harboring a dangerous animal.

Case
State v. Criswell 305 P.3d 760 (Mont.,2013) 2013 MT 177, 370 Mont. 511, 2013 WL 3324365

Defendants were convicted of aggravated animal cruelty for subjecting ten or more animals (cats) to mistreatment or neglect by confining them in a cruel manner and/or failing to provide adequate food and water. On appeal, defendants raise two main issues: (1) whether the State presented sufficient evidence and (2) whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying their motions for mistrial. As to the sufficiency argument, the Supreme Court held that the testimony from veterinary experts as well as the individuals involved in the rescue of the 400-plus cats removed from the three travel trailers was sufficient. On the mistrial issue, the Supreme Court agreed with the District Court that the remarks were improper. However, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court's ruling that the comments were not so egregious to render the jury incapable of weighing the evidence fairly.

Case
Hardrick v. City of Detroit 2016 WL 6600039 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2016) (unpublished) No. 15-13884 In January of 2005, the Detroit City Council passed an ordinance granting special police powers to officers working in the Animal Control Division (ACD). The ordinance allowed ACD officers to have “the right of entry without a warrant” for the purpose of capturing or restraining any animal. Detroit residents filed a petition arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional and the court granted a petition for a preliminary injunction on the basis that the ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment. Following the injunction a number of residents filed suit seeking damages against the City of Detroit arguing that the City improperly seized their pets and failed to provide adequate post-deprivation remedies. Lastly, the residents argued that the City operated its animal shelter in a “grossly negligent manner” after numerous dogs suffered severe illnesses after having been taken to the shelter for quarantine by the ACD. The court reviewed the testimonies of the individual residents who claimed that their pets had been improperly seized and determined that the seizures of the pets were “objectionably reasonable.” In order to determine whether the seizures were “objectionably reasonable” the court stated that it “must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individuals Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake by analyzing the totality of the circumstances.” Ultimately, the court found that it was reasonable for the officers to have seize the pets in each situation based on the facts presented and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Detroit. Finally, the court reviewed the residents’ arguments pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment and held that because the vast majority of the pets were found “unrestrained, unlicensed, abandoned by their owner, or accused of biting another animal or human,” the City’s interest in protecting the public was far greater than any “pre-seizure due process owed to the plaintiffs.” As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. With regard to the residents’ claim about the state of the City’s animal shelter, the court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the claim. Case
MI - Dog Bite - Chapter 750. Michigan Penal Code. The Michigan Penal Code. M. C. L. A. 750.66a MI ST 750.66a This Michigan law, which became effective January of 2009, provides that a person 18 years of age or older who is responsible for controlling the actions of a dog or wolf-dog cross and the person knows or has reason to know that the dog or wolf-dog cross has bitten another person shall remain on the scene. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both. Statute
HI - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws H R S § 711-1109.4; § 711-1109.5; § 143-4; § 347-2.5 - 20; § 489-1 - 9; § 142-5.5; § 515-3; § 279J-10 HI ST § 711-1109.4; § 711-1109.5; § 143-4; § 347-2.5 - 20; § 489-1 - 9; § 142-5.5; § 515-3 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
Geary v. Sullivan County Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. 815 N.Y.S.2d 833 (N.Y., 2006) 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 04497

In this New York case, plaintiffs surrendered their maltreated horse to defendant Sullivan County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. on March 4, 2005. Shortly thereafter, they commenced this action seeking return of the horse and damages, including punitive damages. Defendants' answer failed to respond to all paragraphs of the 38-paragraph complaint, which included six causes of action, prompting plaintiffs to move for summary judgment on the ground that defendants admitted "all" essential and material facts. At oral argument before this Court, plaintiffs' counsel consented to defendants filing an amended answer. The court found that since this amended pleading will presumably contain denials to all contested allegations in the complaint, plaintiffs' request for summary judgment on the procedural ground that defendants' failed to deny certain facts must fail. Moreover, as correctly noted by Supreme Court, conflicting evidence precludes summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor.

Case

Pages