Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. McDonald | 110 P.3d 149 (Ut. 2005) | 2005 UT App. 86 |
A woman was convicted of fifty-eight counts of animal cruelty after animal control officers found fifty-eight diseased cats in her trailer. The trial court sentenced the woman to ninety days of jail time for each count, but revised the sentence to include two days of jail time, two years of formal probation, and twelve and a half years of informal probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but found that fourteen and a half years probation exceeded the court's statutory authority. |
Case |
| LA - Vehicle, animal - § 1738.1. Immunity from liability; gratuitous emergency care to domestic animal | LSA-R.S. 37:1738.1 | LA R.S. 37:1738.1 | This 2018 Louisiana law states that there shall be no liability on the part of a person for property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle, if the damage was caused while the person was rescuing an animal in distress. The person must first do the following: (1) make a good-faith attempt to locate the owner before forcibly entering the vehicle (based on the circumstances); (2) contact local law enforcement/911 before forcibly entering; (3) determine the vehicle is locked and has a good-faith belief there is no other reasonable means for the animal to be removed; (3) believe that removal of the animal is necessary because the animal is in imminent danger of death; (4) use no more force than necessary to rescue the animal; (5) place a notice on the windshield providing details including contact information and the location of the animal; and (6) remain with the animal in a safe location reasonably close to the vehicle until first responders arrive. For purposes of the law, "animal” means any cat or dog kept for pleasure, companionship, or other purposes that are not purely commercial. | Statute |
| WA - Research - 19.86.145. Penalties--Animals used in biomedical research | West's RCWA 19.86.145 | WA ST 19.86.145 | This law provides that any violation of RCW 9.08.070 - 9.08.078 (relating to concealing or taking a pet animal with the intent to deprive or defraud the owner) or RCW 16.52.220 (relating to transfer of mammals other than rats or mice for use in research) constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice. Research institutions that violate this provision face only monetary penalties not to exceed $2,500. | Statute |
| TX - Licenses - § 826.032. Registration; Criminal Penalty | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.032 | TX HEALTH & S § 826.032 | This Texas statute provides that a person commits an offense (Class C misdemeanor) if he or she fails to or refuses to register or present for registration a dog or cat owned by the person as required by state law or local ordinance. | Statute |
| AR - Batesville - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance. Sec. 6.04.12 Vicious animals-quarantine required | BATESVILLE, AR., MUNICIPAL CODE, § 6.04.12 (2010) |
In Batesville, Arkansas, pit bull dogs are banned and may not be owned or kept within the City, with exceptions for dogs that were licensed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. In this case, the owner must provide proof of sterilization, rabies vaccination, liability insurance of $100,000, and keep the dog properly confined and display a “Beware of Dog” sign. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Whelen v. Barlow | 1975 CarswellAlta 242 | [1976] W.W.D. 35 |
Plaintiff Whelen was drunken, threatening and disorderly in defendant Barlow's hotel bar, where he kept guard dogs for the purpose of preventing break-ins and keeping the peace. After the plaintiff and friends were asked to leave the premises and not return, he later returned, making threatening gestures and was bitten on the face and arm by one of the guard-dogs. The court held that the plaintiff was 2/3 contributorily liable for his injuries, since when he returned he was trespassing; the defendant was 1/3 contributorily liable since the court held that keeping volatile guard-dogs as bouncers was not reasonable. |
Case |
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY Nº 300, 2012 | LEY Nº 300, 2012 | Ley 300 establishes the legal framework for the conservation of the environment, or "mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of mother earth and the legal status that are subjects of rights. | Statute | |
| Westberry v. Blackwell | 577 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978) | 282 Or. 129 (Or. 1978) |
In this Oregon case, plaintiff filed this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when she was bitten by defendants' dog. The complaint alleged a cause of action for strict liability and another for negligence. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary nonsuit on both causes of action. On appeal, this court found the previous biting, which had occurred only one hour before, could reasonably lead a jury to believe that the dog had dangerous propensities, and that the defendants had knowledge of them. Thus, the court found that the involuntary nonsuit on the strict liability cause was improperly granted. Further, the question of whether the owner, who knew the dog had bitten the guest while on her way into the owner's house, was negligent in failing to control or confine the dog, was for the jury. Reversed and remanded. |
Case |
| PR - Ordinances - Municipal regulation of domestic animals | PR ST T. 24 § 651 | 24 L.P.R.A. § 651 |
This Puerto Rico statute confers authority to the municipal councils of Puerto Rico to regulate by ordinance, the running at large of domestic animals, destruction and impounding of such animals, as well as the regulation of muzzling and licensing of dogs. In addition, the councils are given authority to enact all needful ordinances to protect the public health as affected by the running at large of domestic animals. |
Statute |
| Downey v. Pierce County | 267 P.3d 445 (Wash.App. Div. 2, 2011) | 2011 WL 5931911 (Wash.App. Div. 2) |
Dog owner sued county challenging county's dangerous animal declaration (DAD) proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that charging a fee to obtain an initial evidentiary review of a DAD violated owner's due process rights because it impacted owner's property and financial interests and potentially subjected her to future criminal sanctions. The court also held that the lack of an adequate evidentiary standard regarding review of DADs violated due process because the ordinance required only that the reviewing auditor determine if there was sufficient evidence to support the DAD. |
Case |