Displaying 61 - 70 of 76
Titlesort ascending Summary
Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 333: Sections 6402-6405

Sections 6402-6405 of Chapter 333 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers offences against humanity and morality .  Specifically, the statutes cover following topics: animal cruelty, transportation of animals, and docking of horses.

Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 331: Section 6367

Section 6367 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the transportation of wild animals.  Specifically, the statute establishes the duty of care that must be given to the public when transporting a wild animal.

Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 96: Sections 1879-1886

Sections 1879-1886 of Chapter 96 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers in general the Humane Society for Connecticut.  Specifically, the sections cover the following topics: the powers of an agent from the society, the definition of an animal, and funding of the society.

Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 337: Section 6546

Section 6546 of Chapter 337 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers jurisdiction and powers of courts. Specifically, the statute states the power of the court to issue search warrants for animal cruelty. 

Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 329: Section 6268

Section 6268 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the unlawful injury to certain property of another.  Specifically, the statute states the punishment for hurting, maiming, poisoning anther's cattle, ox, horse, and mule.

Connecticut General Statutes 1902: Sections 2807-2816

The 1902 General Statutes of Connecticut sections 2807-2816 cover the following topics: definition of an animal, powers of an agent from humane society, and funding of the humane society.

Carrasquillo v. Carlson

A Connecticut motorist brought a negligence action against a dog owner, seeking to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he took evasive action to avoid hitting dog.  The Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, granted the dog owner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that the record was adequate for appellate review; the dog owner exercised reasonable control while walking dog; the statute allowing imposition of fine or imprisonment or both on owner of dog that interferes with motor vehicle did not apply; and the dog owner demonstrated that motorist would be unable to cure legal defects in complaint even if permitted to replead.


This Connecticut decision in 1885 held consequential losses as a result of the harm to an animal (a horse) to be a proper element of damages in addition to the fair market value of the animal. Specifically, the court applied fair market value, but disallowed consequential damages for lost profits where plaintiff failed to show an effort to mitigate such damages.

Brockett v. Abbe

Defendant-farmer filed a counterclaim for damages for the erroneous determination by the veterinarian that certain cow was not pregnant (plaintiff veterinarian used a "punch test" - where a fist is struck against the abdomen of a cow to determine pregnancy rather than the industry-standard rectal examination). As a result, defendant-farmer sold the cow for $170 versus the $550 he could have received for a pregnant cow.  The Court found that it was erroneous for the circuit court to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, as diagnoses and scientific treatment are improper subjects for the doctrine. The mere proof that the diagnosis later on turned out to be erroneous is insufficient to support a judgment, the court stated.

Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church (Unpublished)

In this unpublished Connecticut opinion, the defendant-church owned property and leased a portion of the premises to one of its employees, Pedro Salinas.  The plaintiff was attacked by a dog, owned by Salinas, while lawfully on the defendant's premises.  The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of defendant.  On appeal, the court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant-church was a "harborer" of the dog under Connecticut law.  Because Salinas and the church had no formal lease agreement, dispute existed as to the exact parameters of Salinas' exclusive control of the premises where his dog roamed.  There also existed a material fact regarding the church's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities because it had twice previously attacked a person. (Note the jury trial decision in favor of plaintiff was later overturned in

Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church

, --- A.2d ----, 94 Conn.App. 617, 2006 WL 797892 (Conn.App.)).