Oregon

Displaying 71 - 80 of 97
Titlesort ascending Summary
OR - Dangerous Dog - 609.155. Impoundment of dogs for harming or chasing livestock; tests to determine fact; costs



This Oregon statute provides that, in a county with a dog control program, upon finding a dog engaged in killing, wounding, injuring or chasing livestock or upon receipt from a complainant of evidence that a dog has been so engaged, the dog control officer or other law enforcement officer shall impound the dog.  Tests may then be conducted to determine whether there is evidence that the dog committed the offense and then a companion statute provides an opportunity for a hearing on the facts.

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 - Assistance Animal - Damages recoverable for harm or theft of assistance animal


This Oregon statute provides that a physically impaired person who uses an assistance animal or the owner of an assistance animal may bring an action for economic and noneconomic damages against any person who steals or, without provocation, attacks the assistance animal.  The measure of economic damages shall include the replacement value of an equally trained assistance animal and any other costs and expenses, including costs of temporary replacement assistance services, whether provided by another assistance animal or a person.  A cause of action will not be maintained where the individual with the assistance animal was committing a civil or criminal trespass.

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.

McCallister v. Sappingfield


Plaintiff brought action for damages against defendant for killing his dog. Evidence as to its special value was admissible. was not error to admit the testimony of plaintiff regarding the dog's special value. Owner of a dog wrongfully killed was not limited to market value and could prove its special value by showing its qualities, characteristics, and pedigree.

Lockett v. Hill


Defendant's pit bulls killed plaintiff's cat while she watched. This is an appellate brief about non-economic damages.

Pages