Oregon

Displaying 61 - 70 of 89
Titlesort ascending Summary
OR - Dundee - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.08 KEEPING OF CHICKENS)


In Dundee, Oregon, chickens are permitted within the city only in conformance with the following ordinances. For instance, a single-family dwelling may keep up to six chickens, and the offspring under the age of four months of these chickens, on the lot or parcel on which the dwelling resides; roosters. however, are not allowed. Additionally, these ordinances prohibit residents from slaughtering chickens within the city unless certain conidtions are met. Penalties for violations are also provided.

OR - Domestic Violence - 107.718. Court order when petitioner in imminent danger of abuse (allows pets)


Under this Oregon law, if requested by a petitioner who has been the victim of domestic abuse, the court may enter an order to protect a companion or therapy animal. This includes an order to "[p]revent the neglect and protect the safety of any service or therapy animal or any animal kept for personal protection or companionship, but not an animal kept for any business, commercial, agricultural or economic purpose."

OR - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws

These Oregon statutes comprise the state's dog laws.  Among the provisions include licensing and registration requirements, rabies control laws, and a comprehensive section on damage done by dogs, especially as it concerns the destruction of livestock.

OR - Disaster - Chapter 401. Emergency Services


In Oregon, the Office of Emergency Management must prepare a written animal emergency operations plan that provides for the evacuation, transport and temporary sheltering of companion and service animals during a major disaster or an emergency. The office shall consider various factors, including allowing owners and their companion animals to be evacuated together, establishing evacuation shelters for animals in close proximity to human shelters, and establishing an identification system so that owners can locate their animals.

OR - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes


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.

OR - Cruelty - Arrest warrants in cruelty matters (Chapter 133)


This set of Oregon laws relates to the arrest of those found violating the state's cruelty laws. Under the section, any person violating ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355, 167.365 or 167.428 may be arrested and held without warrant, in the same manner as in the case of persons found breaking the peace. Further, any peace officer who cares or provides for an animal pursuant to this section and any person into whose care an animal is delivered by a peace officer acting under this section shall be immune from civil or criminal liability based upon an allegation that such care was negligently provided.

OR - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws


The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

OR - Animal Definitions - Chapter 87. Statutory Liens. Liens Generally. 87.142. Definitions


This is Oregon's statutory definitions for Animal Statutes.

Norwest v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital


This court found that there was no common law liability where a tortfeasor's conduct caused a child to lose parental support and care. The court declined to create a new common law cause of action for parental consortium, and suggested that it was up to the legislature to create such a cause of action. However, dicta in the case refers to an invasion of the animal/animal owner relationship as actionable misconduct.

Newport v. Moran


In this Oregon case, an action was brought to recover damages for injuries after defendant's dog ran into plaintiff and knocked her down. The lower court entered a verdict against the defendant and she appealed. The Court of Appeals held that, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was find no evidence that would put defendant on notice that the dog had a potentially dangerous propensity to run into people. Further, without some reason to foresee that the dog was likely to run into people, there was no common-law duty to confine the dog. The evidence also did not warrant submission of the case to the jury on the theory of negligence

per se

for violation of the dog control ordinance because this risk was not one anticipated by the ordinance. Reversed.

Pages