|
KY - Impound - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. |
This Kentucky statute provides that an owner shall exercise proper care and control of his dog to prevent the dog from violating any local government nuisance ordinance. Any peace officer or animal control officer may seize or destroy any dog found running at large between the hours of sunset and sunrise and unaccompanied and not under the control of its owner or handler. A peace officer or animal control officer shall be under a duty to make a fair and reasonable effort to determine whether any dog found at large between sunset and sunrise is a hound or other hunting dog which has become lost temporarily. |
|
Hood River County v. Mazzara |
In this Oregon case, the defendant appealed a conviction for violating Hood River County Ordinances (HRCO) under which the owner of a dog may not allow it "to become a public nuisance * * * " by "[d]isturb[ing] any person by frequent or prolonged noises[.]" (Her dog was reported to have barked for six straight hours.) The defendant argued that the ordinances are invalid as applied to her because ORS 30.935 immunizes farm practices from the application of local government ordinances. The defendant operated a farm with a herd of 60 cashmere and angora goats on land that bordered a national forest and used her dogs to keep predators at bay. The Court of Appeals noted that once defendant raised the defense of the right to farm practice, the county had the burden of disproving it, which it failed to do. Further, the trial court erred by disregarding uncontested facts that established defendant's immunity.
|
|
Community Cats: Changing the Legal Paradigm for the Management of So-Called “Pests” |
Recognizing that the science, policy, and law involving the different animal “pests” are unique, the approach to changing the traditional paradigm is largely the same. Although the debate continues surrounding free-roaming cats, the approach of cat advocates to turn the tide away from deeply entrenched lethal methods of animal control provides an interesting and useful case study on how to alter the political, scientific, and legal paradigm in favor of respecting animal life for all animals deemed “pests.” |
|
Commonwealth v. Gardner |
In this Pennsylvania case, a new resident moved next door to a woman who had been operating a kennel for years. He then complained to the borough council which then amended an ordinance such that the keeping of more than six dogs over six months of age was made a nuisance per se, illegal and a violation of the ordinance. The court held that it did not believe that the borough council or the court had the power or the authority to determine that more than a certain number is a nuisance per se, and less than that number is a nuisance only upon proof of the same being a nuisance. "In other words, it is our opinion that the borough council, in the exercise of its police power may not unreasonably and arbitrarily prohibit things which were not nuisances at common law, and their declaration in an ordinance that a thing is a public nuisance does not make it so, if it is not a nuisance in fact . . ."
|
|
Canada - B.C. - B.C. Statutes - Vancouver Charter. Part XIV -- Nuisances |
These British Columbia, Canada laws provide the laws for preventing, abating, and prohibiting nuisances, which include dangerous dogs. The laws describe what constitutes a dangerous dog and what actions may be taken with a dangerous dog. The set also contains provisions that allow for the creation of by-laws to control and impound animals. |
|
Brinton v. Codoni |
This unpublished Washington case stems from an attack on plaintiff's dog by a neighbor's dog. Plaintiff sued for damages, alleging negligence and nuisance. The trial court ruled on partial summary judgment that the plaintiff's damages were limited, as a matter of law, to the dog's fair market value. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to damages based on the dog's intrinsic value (i.e., utility and service and not sentimental attachment) and her emotional distress. On appeal, this court held that since the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that her dog had no fair market value, the trial court properly limited damages to that value. Further, because the plaintiff's nuisance claims were grounded in negligence, she was not entitled to damages beyond those awarded for her negligence claim.
|
|
Bormann v. Board of Supervisors In and For Kossuth County |
The court held that a statutory immunity provision designed to protect farming operations from nuisance litigation constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment because the right to maintain an action for nuisance at common law was considered an easement.
|
|
AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation. |
§§ 9-211 to 9-226. Repealed by Laws 2016, Ch. 62, § 9, eff. Jan. 1, 2017 (related to powers of the board of trustees) |
|
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc. |
This case has to do with the mistreatment and unsafe captivity of numerous animals kept at a roadside zoo in Sequim, Washington called Olympic Game Farm (OGF). The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) alleged that OGF’s failure to abide by the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as alleged violations of Washington State animal cruelty laws created a public nuisance. OGF admitted one of the allegations, specifically, that they are not accredited but possess or display Roosevelt Elk. That was an admitted violation of Washington law which makes it unlawful for a non-accredited facility to possess such a species. That single admission supported ALDF’s public nuisance claim in addition to all of the other alleged state violations. The court stated that ALDF met the "low bar" of standing in a public nuisance context. Accordingly, OGF’s Motion to Dismiss was denied. |
|
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc. |
This case is brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (Plaintiff) against a private zoo based in Washington state, known as Olympic Game Farm, Inc (Defendant). Plaintiff argues that defendant has violated Washington’s wildlife laws, animal cruelty laws, and the Washington and federal Endangered Species Acts. Plaintiff also argues that defendant has created a public nuisance, which is a nuisance that “affects equally the rights of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of that damage may be unequal.” Generally, conduct the Washington legislature has named a public nuisance relating to animals are those which have an adverse impact on public land, such as improper discharge of pollution or animal carcasses, or other interferences with public enjoyment of land and public safety. None of these nuisances reference any animal cruelty laws and no animal protection statues name a nuisance as a violation of those laws. However, plaintiff argued that they have demonstrated that defendant is in violation of animal cruelty and wildlife laws, and asked the court to name the violation of these laws as a public nuisance per se. The court found that previous cases regarding public nuisance claims limit those claims to instances of property infringement or threats to public health and safety. Accordingly, the court held that defendant’s alleged violation of the wildlife, animal cruelty, and endangered species laws, did not constitute a public nuisance. |
