Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Agriculture & Consumer Services - Department Duties and Enforcement | West's F. S. A. § 585.001 - 585.008 | FL ST § 585.001 - 585.008 | This set of laws explains the powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services in enforcing the Animal Industry laws (Chapter 585). Any person or officer that is charged with a duty under the Animal Industry laws may be compelled to perform the same by mandamus, injunction, or other court-ordered remedy. Department employees are authorized to enter any premises in the state for the purposes of carrying out their duties under the Animal Industry laws and it is illegal for any person to interfere with the discharge of those duties. | Statute | |
| Kervin v. State | 195 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) | 2016 WL 3606532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 6, 2016) | Donald Ray Kervin was found guilty of felony animal cruelty stemming from a 2012 incident at his residence. Animal control officers arrived to find defendant's dog "Chubbie" in a small, hot laundry room a the back of his house that emitted a "rotten-flesh odor." Chubbie was visibly wet, lying in his own feces and urine, with several open wounds infested with maggots. After questioning Kervin about the dog's injuries, defendant finally admitted to hitting Chubbie with a shovel for discipline. The dog was ultimately euthanized due to the severity of his condition. In this instant appeal, Kervin contends that the lower court erred in using the 2014 revised jury instruction to instruct the jury on the charged offense rather than the 2012 version of the instruction. Kevin argued that the 2014 version expanded the 2012 version to include the “failure to act” in felony animal cruelty cases. Also, Kervin argued that the 2012 version should have been used because it was in place at the time the offense occurred. Ultimately, the court found that the lower court did not err by using the 2014 jury instruction. The court held that the 2014 jury instructions merely “clarified” the 2012 jury instruction and that the “failure to act” was already present in the 2012 jury instruction. As a result, the court upheld Kervin’s guilty verdict. | Case | |
| Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc. | 920 So.2d 36 (D. Fla. 2004) | 2005 WL 3180013 (D. Fla.) |
In this Florida dog bite case, the appellant asked the court to limit the application of a case that held that a landlord has no duty to third parties for injuries caused by a tenant's dog where those injuries occur off the leased premises. The child-tenant injured in this case was bitten by the dog of another tenant in a park adjacent to the apartment complex where she lived. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the landlord because the boundary of the premises is not dispositive of the landlord's liability. |
Case | |
| FL - Dogs - Florida Dog /Dangerous Dog Laws | West's F. S. A. § 509.233; § 767.01 - 16; § 705.19; § 823.041; § 823.15 - 151; § 877.14 | FL ST § 509.233; §§ 767.01 - 16; § 705.19; § 823.041; § 823.15 - 151; § 877.14 | These Florida statutes outline the state's dog provisions, which mainly cover dangerous dog/dog bite laws. The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness. However, any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident. If a dog that has previously been declared dangerous attacks or bites a person or a domestic animal without provocation, the owner is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. The dog will be impounded for a period of ten days during which time the owner of the dog may request a hearing. | Statute | |
| FL - Hunting, remote - 68A-4.001. General Prohibitions | 68 FL ADC 68A-4.001 | Rule 68A-4.001, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation prohibits a person from taking or assisting in taking wildlife using a method that involves remote control aiming and discharging of a gun when that person is not physically present at the location of that gun, among other things. | Administrative | |
| Bennett v. Bennett | 655 So.2d 109 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.,1995) | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D225 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.,1995) |
In this Florida case, the husband, Ronald Bennett, appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarding custody of the parties' dog. Specifically, the husband challenged the trial court's awarding the former wife visitation with the dog. The appellate court held that the trial court lacked the authority to order visitation with personal property (in this case, a dog). The court recognized that the lower court was trying to reach a fair solution, but the order was reversed and remanded remanded so that the trial court could award the animal pursuant to the dictates of the equitable distribution statute. |
Case | |
| City of Delray Beach v. St. Juste | 989 So.2d 655 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2008) | 2008 WL 2261598 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.); 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1456 |
In this Florida case, the city of Delray Beach appeals a judgment for damages in favor of plaintiff, who was injured by two loose dogs. Plaintiff was attacked and severely injured by two large dogs owned by a resident of Delray Beach, when the dogs escaped from the resident's fenced yard. The theory of liability was based on the city's knowledge, from prior complaints and an actual visit by an animal control officer, that these dogs were loose from time to time and dangerous. This court agreed with the city, finding that the decision of an animal control officer was discretionary and therefore immune from liability under these circumstances. |
Case | |
| FL - Definitions - Animal Definitions | West's F. S. A. § 828.02 | FL ST § 828.02 | The word "animal" shall be held to include every living dumb creature. | Statute | |
| FL - Restaurant - 509.233. Public food service establishment requirements; local exemption for dogs | West's F. S. A. § 509.233 | FL ST § 509.233 | Florida was one of the first states to enact a law on dogs in restaurants in 2006. The law allows a local unit of government to adopt an ordinance that acts as an exemption to the state's Food and Drug Administration Food Code. Once the local exemption is passed, a restaurant can apply for a permit to allow dogs in the outdoor dining spaces. Certain things must be included in the ordinance such as a requirement that staff wash after touching pets, a rule that patrons keep dogs on leashes and under control, a prohibition against dogs on chairs, tables, or other furnishings, signs that list the rules for employees and patrons, and a clean-up station in the outdoor dining area. There are also reporting requirements by the local governments to the State of Florida under the law. The city or county must also have a system in place to document and respond to complaints. | Statute | |
| FL - Lost Property - Lost or Abandoned Property | West's F. S. A. § 705.101 - 19 | FL ST § 705.101 - 19 | These Florida statutes comprise the state's lost property statutes. | Statute |