Dangerous Dog
Displaying 521 - 530 of 581
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 |
|
| University Towers Associates v. Gibson |
In this New York case, the petitioner, University Towers Associates commenced this holdover proceeding against the rent-stabilized tenant of record and various undertenants based on an alleged nuisance where the tenants allegedly harbored pit bulls. According to petitioner, the pit bull is an alleged “known dangerous animal” whose presence at the premises creates an threat. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that the landlord's notice of termination did not adequately apprise the tenant of basis for termination; further, the notice of termination and the petition in the holdover proceeding did not allege objectionable conduct over time by the tenant as was required to establish nuisance sufficient to warrant a termination of tenancy. |
| UT - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | These Utah statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal pound pet sterilization provisions, rabies control laws, hunting laws that impact dogs, and laws concerning injuries caused by dogs. |
| UT - Dog Bite - Title 18. Dogs. Chapter 1. Injuries by Dogs. | This Utah statute provides that every person owning or keeping a dog shall be liable in damages for injury committed by such dog, and it shall not be necessary in any action brought therefor to allege or prove that such dog was of a vicious or mischievous disposition or that the owner or keeper thereof knew that it was vicious or mischievous. This does not apply to dogs used by law enforcement officials. In 2014, a provision for the use of arbitration in personal injury from dog bite cases was added. |
| VA - Dangerous - § 3.2-6540. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties | These Virginia statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog laws, which were updated in 2021. Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who (i) has reason to believe that an animal is a dangerous dog and (ii) is located in the jurisdiction where the animal resides or in the jurisdiction where the act was committed may apply to a magistrate for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. Section 3.2-6540.1 also defines a vicious dog as "a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person, (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by ordinance that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding." |
| VA - Dangerous - § 3.2-6553. Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs | This Virginia statute states that any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or injured by any dog not his or her own shall be entitled to receive the fair market value of such livestock or poultry not to exceed $750 per animal or $10 per fowl, provided that the claimant has furnished evidence, the animal control officer was notified within seventy-two hours after discovery of the damage, and the claimant has exhausted other legal remedies. However, local jurisdictions may by ordinance waive the last two requirements provided that the ordinance adopted requires that the animal control officer has conducted an investigation and that his investigation supports the claim. |
| VA - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | These Virginia statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws on the sale of dogs, rabies control laws, and sections concerning damage done by dogs. |
| VA - Exotic Pets - Article 11. Hybrid Canines | This section provides Virginia's hybrid canine laws (registered or described to a veterinarian, animal control, or other listed authority as a wolf or coyote-dog cross) Under the section, any locality may, by ordinance, establish a permit system to ensure the adequate confinement and responsible ownership of hybrid canines. Violation of an ordinance enacted pursuant to this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor for the first violation and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any subsequent violation. Further, it is the duty of any animal control officer or other officer who may find a hybrid canine in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such hybrid canine forthwith, whether such hybrid canine bears a tag or not. |
| Van Kleek v. Farmers Insurance Exchange | Plaintiff agreed to watch a couple’s dog while they were out of town. While plaintiff was caring for the dog, the animal bit her on her lower lip. Plaintiff filed a claim with the couple's insurance company. The insurance company rejected the claim because the plaintiff was also "insured," defined to include “any person ... legally responsible” for covered animals, and the policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries to "insureds." Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment against the insurance company, seeking a determination that the policy covered her claim. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, and the district court sustained the insurance company's motion, reasoning that plaintiff was “legally responsible” for the dog because she fed and watered the animal and let it out of the house while the couple was away. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed and held the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment. |
| Vanater v. Village of South Point |
|