Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How to add a Statute |
Once you log on, go to the upper gray bar and click on "Add Content." From there, select "Statute." ALL STATUTES MUST FIRST BE SAVED IN PLAIN TEXT FORMAT LIKE IN NOTEPAD. YOU WILL COPY AND PASTE FROM NOTEPAD. THIS MUST BE DONE TO REMOVE FORMATTING. |
Basic page | ||
| NY - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 123, 123-a | NY AGRI & MKTS § 123, 123-a | This New York statute provides that statutory penalties for dog bites and the process for declaring a dog "dangerous." Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may make a complaint of an attack or threatened attack upon a person, companion animal, farm animal, or a domestic animal to a dog control officer or police officer of the appropriate municipality. Such officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his or her right to commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this section and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself or herself. Upon a finding that a dog is dangerous, the judge or justice may order humane euthanasia or permanent confinement of the dog if one listed aggravating circumstances is established at the judicial hearing. | Statute |
| Ruiz v. Franklin County Animal Control | 732 S.E.2d 393 (Table), 2012 WL 4510934 (N.C.App.) (unpublished) |
This North Carolina case is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment in favor of Franklin County Animal Control. Defendants argue that the trial court erred by declining to enter summary judgment in their favor on the basis of governmental immunity. The appellate court agreed, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded for an entry of summary judgment for defendants. The court found that there is no dispute in the record that Franklin County Animal Control and Stallings, in his official capacity as an Animal Control Officer, were performing a governmental function in impounding and euthanizing plaintiff's dog. Further, plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that defendants waived governmental immunity, subjecting her action to dismissal. |
Case | |
| England and Wales - Hunting, mammals - Hunting Act 2004 | 2004 CHAPTER 37 | An Act controlling the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and prohibiting hare coursing. The hare coursing prohibition covers facilitating, attending, spectating or otherwise. Schedule 1 of the Act provides for exemptions to hunting wild mammals with dogs, to include: stalking, or flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that this is done to prevent or reduce potential damage elsewhere, for example to livestock or crops; to obtain meat for human or animal consumption or; participation in a field trial competition. For this hunting to be exempt, the stalking or flushing must not involve more than two dogs, or take place on land without the owner’s permission. Further exemption requirements are that one dog may go below ground only, to flush or dig out the mammal in circumstances where the purpose is to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds. Further, conditions require that the mammal must subsequently be shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed. Other exceptions include the hunting of rabbits or rats with dogs. | Statute | |
| ARFF, Inc. v. Siegel | 867 So.2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) | 29 Fla. L. Weekly D355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) |
Resort developer and president of an animal performance company received an injunction against an animal rights group limiting their ability to both picket the resort and distribute pamphlets claiming that the big cats were abused. Appellate court reversed, finding that the picketing regulations burdened more speech than necessary and that the restriction on distributing pamphlets was a prior restraint not justified by a compelling state interest. |
Case |
| Farnham v. Meder | 45 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., 2007) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 08529, 2007 WL 3318273 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), 845 N.Y.S.2d 619 |
In this New York case, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained when defendants' bull knocked him to the ground while plaintiff was chasing the bull from his own property. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's activities in chasing the bull constituted primary assumption of the risk. This court concluded that Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion. The record established that plaintiff was fully familiar with defendants' bull and had in fact chased the bull from plaintiffs' property on prior occasions. At no time had the bull ever acted aggressively toward plaintiff, and thus plaintiff had no reason to assume that the bull would do so on this particular occasion. |
Case |
| CHAPTER 21 STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY FISH AND WILDLIFE ORDINANCE |
CHAPTER 21 STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY |
Local Ordinance | ||
| ZENIER v. SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL RAILROAD COMPANY | 300 P.2d 494 (Idaho, 1956) | 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho, 1956) |
In Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co ., 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho 1956), a rancher’s mare and colt was killed, and the rancher sought statutory damages and attorney fees. A jury found for the rancher and imposed damages mainly on his testimony as to value. The railroad sought review, stating that the rancher's own negligence in allowing the horses to run barred recovery and there was no objective evidence as to value. The court upheld the award, finding that the animal’s value to the rancher was permitted as a basis for determining damages where personal property has been injured by the willful or negligent act of another. |
Case |
| RI - Vehicle - § 31-22-28. Transporting animals | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 31-22-28 | RI ST § 31-22-28 | This Rhode Island law makes it unlawful for any person to transport any animal, whether for business or pleasure, in an open air motor vehicle unless certain requirements are met: (1) the animal is kept in an enclosed area of the vehicle; (2) the animal is under physical control of a person; or (3) the animal is safely restrained and harnessed by means other than a neck restraint. Violation results in a fine of $50 to $100, with an increase of up to $200 for each subsequent offense. | Statute |
| NJ - Ordinance - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by. | NJSA 4:19-15.12 | NJ ST 4:19-15.12 | This New Jersey statute provides that a municipality may by ordinance, fix the sum to be paid annually for a dog license and each renewal thereof, which sum shall be not less than $1.50 nor more than $21.00. The statute also also provides upper and lower limits for three-year licenses. | Statute |