Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | T. C. A. § 39-14-208, 212, 216; § 39-16-304; § 44-17-403, 404; § 55-8-180; § 62-7-112; § 66-7-104, 106; 111; § 66-28-406; § 66-28-505 | TN ST § 39-14-208, 212, 216; § 39-16-304; § 44-17-403, 404; § 55-8-180; § 62-7-112; § 66-7-104, 106; 111; § 66-28-406; § 66-28-505 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| NH - Ordinances - 466:30-b Referendum (muzzling and restraining dogs) | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 466:30-b | NH ST § 466:30-b | This New Hampshire statute outlines the required referendum format if a town seeks to adopt an ordinance that prohibits the running at large of dogs. Towns that do not adopt this statutory format may regulate the running at large of dogs by enacting ordinances that comply with other statutes. | Statute | |
| Loban v. City of Grapevine | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2009 WL 5183802 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth,2009) |
In this unpublished Texas case, Appellant Jason Loban appeals the trial court's judgment awarding appellee City of Grapevine $10,670.20 in damages. In 2006, Appellant's dogs were declared "dangerous" under the City's municipal ordinance. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court's award of $10,670.20 in damages to the City should be reversed because the City did not plead for monetary relief, the issue was not tried by consent, and there was no evidence to support the award. This Court agreed. In finding the monetary judgment void, the Court observed that the City did not put any request for a monetary award in its pleadings and there was no evidence in the record of the amount of the fine. |
Case | ||
| State v. Kess | Not Reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 2677857 (N.J.Super.A.D.) |
After receiving a call to investigate a complaint of the smell of dead bodies, a health department specialist found defendant burying sixteen to twenty-one garbage bags filled with decaying cats in her backyard (later investigations showed there were about 200 dead cats total). Defendant also housed 35-38 cats in her home, some of whom suffered from serious illnesses. Because the humane officer concluded that defendant failed to provide proper shelter for the cats by commingling the healthy and the sick ones, he charged her with thirty-eight counts of animal cruelty, in violation of N.J.S.A. 4:22-17, one for each of the thirty-eight cats found in her home. While defendant claimed that she was housing the cats and attempting to nurse them back to health so they could be adopted out, the court found sufficient evidence that "commingling sick animals with healthy ones and depriving them of ventilation when it is particularly hot inside is failing both directly and indirectly to provide proper shelter." |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - House Conference Report 1985 (AWA) | House Conference Report 99-447 (1985) |
The Senate amendment designates this title as the “Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act.” |
Administrative | ||
| 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 |