Justia Animal / Dog Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant, Allan Washburn, appeals a criminal division order granting the State’s motion for civil forfeiture of his dog, Chad, based on findings of animal cruelty. On three separate occasions, Chad was found locked in the defendant’s car under conditions that included high temperatures, lack of water, and unsanitary environments. The dog was observed to be in distress, unable to move freely, and suffering from malnutrition and lack of exercise. These incidents led to the defendant being issued a criminal citation for animal cruelty and the subsequent seizure of Chad.The Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Criminal Division, reviewed the case and found by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had subjected Chad to cruelty. The court credited testimony from animal control officers and humane officers who described the poor conditions Chad was kept in, including high temperatures inside the car, lack of water, and inadequate nutrition. The court also noted that Chad required medical attention upon being taken to an animal center. Based on these findings, the court granted the State’s motion for civil forfeiture of Chad.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and addressed three main arguments raised by the defendant: the criminal division’s jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding, the sufficiency of evidence for animal cruelty, and the admissibility of lay witness testimony regarding the car’s internal temperature. The court found no error in the lower court’s jurisdiction or its findings of animal cruelty. The court also determined that any potential error in admitting the temperature estimate was harmless, as there was ample other evidence supporting the finding of cruelty. Consequently, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the civil forfeiture of Chad. View "State v. Washburn" on Justia Law

A state trooper brought his patrol vehicle to a car dealership for service, accompanied by his canine, Diesel. During the visit, Diesel attacked and injured an employee, Cristina Berrier, without provocation. Berrier suffered serious injuries and subsequently sued the Minnesota State Patrol, alleging negligence and later indicating her intention to pursue a claim under Minnesota’s strict liability dog-bite statute, Minn. Stat. § 347.22.The district court denied the State Patrol’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Berrier’s complaint sufficiently pleaded her statutory claim and that the dog-bite statute waived sovereign immunity. The State Patrol appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the State Patrol was immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The appellate court did not address whether Berrier adequately pleaded her statutory dog-bite claim.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if the dog-bite statute waived sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the language of Minn. Stat. § 347.22, which imposes liability on the "owner" of a dog, was sufficiently plain, clear, and unmistakable to waive sovereign immunity. The court emphasized that the statute’s broad application to any dog owner, including state entities, served the public policy interest of protecting individuals from dog attacks and ensuring their full recovery. Consequently, the court reversed the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hennesy vs. Minnesota State Patrol" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Maryann Russo, who was charged with animal cruelty under G. L. c. 272, § 77, for her treatment of her terminally ill fourteen-year-old cocker spaniel, Tipper. Russo brought Tipper to a veterinarian who recommended euthanasia due to Tipper's severe health issues, including a large necrotic mass, bed sores, and open wounds. Russo declined euthanasia, falsely stating she would take Tipper to another veterinarian, and instead took him home. The Animal Rescue League (ARL) later removed Tipper from Russo's care after the veterinarian reported her suspicions. Tipper was found in poor condition and was subsequently euthanized.In the Quincy Division of the District Court, a criminal complaint was issued against Russo in February 2021. Russo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing it lacked probable cause. The District Court judge granted the motion, concluding that the statute did not impose an affirmative obligation to euthanize an animal. The Commonwealth appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the statute did not criminalize the failure to euthanize an animal. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Commonwealth failed to establish probable cause that Russo acted with the requisite criminal intent. The court concluded that the statute required proof that Russo knowingly and willfully authorized or permitted Tipper to be subjected to unnecessary suffering. The court found that Russo's actions, including seeking medical care and attempting to make Tipper comfortable, did not indicate an intent to cause unnecessary suffering. The court emphasized that speculation alone was insufficient to establish probable cause. View "Commonwealth v. Russo" on Justia Law

The case involves a series of public records requests made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Louisiana State University (LSU) seeking records related to the use and treatment of wild songbirds in the labs of Dr. Christine Lattin, an associate professor at LSU. After LSU failed to produce the requested records, PETA filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to the Louisiana Public Records Act. LSU denied PETA’s allegations and asserted four affirmative defenses. The district court ruled in favor of PETA, granting access to all the records requested. LSU appealed the decision.The court of appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decision. It found that some of the records requested by PETA had been answered by LSU and were not subject to production. However, it also found that some video recordings were not exempt from production as they had been publicly released or published. The court of appeal concluded that the district court had erred in ordering LSU to produce the video recordings that were not utilized by Dr. Lattin for the article or for her presentations and, therefore, had not been publicly released or published.The Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the decision of the court of appeal. It held that the veterinary care records, video recordings, communications relating to Dr. Lattin’s plans to trap or experiment on birds and to amend the City of Baton Rouge’s wild bird ordinance, and records relating to Dr. Lattin’s hiring of private counsel were all public records subject to production under the Louisiana Public Records Law. The court rejected LSU's arguments that the records were not public records, were exempt from production, or were unduly burdensome to produce. View "PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS VS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Candis Danielson, was seriously injured by dogs owned by Donald Mehrtens. She filed a lawsuit against several parties, including Mehrtens and the County of Humboldt. Danielson claimed that the County failed to discharge certain mandatory duties regarding dangerous and unvaccinated dogs under both state law and the Humboldt County Code, which she argued led to her injuries. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend, leading to Danielson's appeal.The trial court found that the duties Danielson identified were not mandatory within the meaning of Government Code section 815.6, and therefore, the County was immune from liability as a matter of law. The court reasoned that even if the Humboldt County Code had created a mandatory duty to hold a potentially dangerous dog hearing, it was uncertain that the hearing would have resulted in the dog's destruction or quarantine. The court also concluded that the vaccination statutes created a mandatory duty to set up an impoundment system, but did not mandate the impound of any specific, unvaccinated animals.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division One affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the duties identified by Danielson were not mandatory and that the County was immune from liability. The court also found that Danielson failed to identify any statute creating a mandatory duty which was breached by the County, and agreed with the trial court that her claim raised a serious question of causation. View "Danielson v. County of Humboldt" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Erin Bulfin, who sued St. Louis County and several employees of St. Louis County Animal Care & Control (ACC) after her pet dog, Daisy, was euthanized at ACC. Bulfin's dog had bitten her daughter, requiring hospitalization. Following the incident, Bulfin's husband, Edward Nea, took Daisy to ACC. The details of the conversation between Nea and ACC employees are disputed, but it is undisputed that Nea signed a form authorizing the euthanasia of Daisy. The next day, Bulfin went to ACC to pick up Daisy for home quarantine and was informed that Daisy had been euthanized.The district court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, concluding that Bulfin's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the defendants reasonably relied on the apparent consent of Bulfin's husband to euthanize Daisy. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the County on Bulfin's federal municipal liability claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bulfin's state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that when ACC accepted custody of Daisy, that was not a seizure because it is undisputed Bulfin approved of Daisy being quarantined in ACC custody after biting her daughter. The court also held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence established a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights that was clearly established at the time of the violation. The court concluded that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred and that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established authority holding that government officials violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing and destroying an effect with the consent of a person who reasonably has actual or apparent authority. View "Bulfin v. Rainwater" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. over the interpretation of a patent licensing agreement. The agreement, signed in 2000, pertained to a peptide used to test for Lyme disease in dogs. The agreement stipulated different royalty rates for different types of products, depending on what tests were included. The dispute arose over the interpretation of two royalty provisions, one for 1% and the other for 2.5%, which could both be read to apply to the same sales of goods. IDEXX Laboratories had been paying the lower royalty rate, but the University argued that the higher rate should have been applied.The trial court ruled in favor of the University, concluding that the licensing agreement was clear and unambiguous and that the University was entitled to recover the unpaid royalties claimed plus accrued interest. On appeal, IDEXX Laboratories argued for the first time that the licensing agreement was ambiguous. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that both interpretations of the royalty provisions were reasonable and conflicting, and therefore the agreement was ambiguous. It reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals. It found that the royalty provisions were not ambiguous when read in the context of the licensing agreement itself and the objective circumstances in which the agreement was produced. The court concluded that the provisions were most reasonably interpreted to require royalties on IDEXX Laboratories' products at the higher rate stipulated in the agreement. The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident that occurred during the 2018 Kentucky Derby. Joi Denise Roby and her husband were invited by Kyle McGinty to the backside stable area of Churchill Downs, a restricted area not open to the public. Roby, who had experience with horses, interacted with the horses in their stalls, including a stable pony named Henry. Henry, owned by Bradley Racing Stables and William Buff Bradley, was used to escort racehorses to and from the track, but was not actively engaged in this activity on the day of the incident. As Roby approached Henry in his stall, he lunged and bit her. Roby subsequently sued Bradley and Churchill Downs for breaching their duty to maintain a safe premises.The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Bradley and Churchill Downs, holding that the Farm Animals Activity Act (FAAA) exemption did not apply to Churchill Downs because the stabling of a horse was a farm animal activity, not a horse racing activity. The court also ruled that Roby was a licensee because she conferred no benefit to Churchill Downs and no evidence in the record supported a breach of duty. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court orders granting summary judgment for Bradley and Churchill Downs, finding that the horse racing exemption applied because live racing was occurring, Roby was injured after being bitten by a horse located on the premises, and the horse was used to escort racehorses to and from the track.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the FAAA horse racing exemption did not apply to Roby's injuries. The court reasoned that while horse racing activities were occurring at Churchill Downs during the Kentucky Derby, neither Bradley, Churchill Downs, nor Roby were engaged in horse racing activities at the time Roby was bitten. The court also held that Louisville Metro Code of Ordinances § 91.028(A), which imposes liability for any personal injury caused by an animal, did not apply to Roby's injuries due to the FAAA's limitation of liability. View "Bradley Racing Stables, LLC v. Roby" on Justia Law

The case involves Scott Johnson, Harlene Hoyt, and Covey Find Kennel, LLC, who challenged the constitutionality of a Kansas statute that allows warrantless inspections of their homestead, where Mr. Johnson operates a business that houses and trains bird dogs. They also claimed that their constitutional right to travel was infringed by a statutory requirement that they make the premises available for inspection within 30 minutes of the arrival of an inspector. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their right-to-travel claim but remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Mr. Johnson’s business is closely regulated and, if so, whether warrantless inspections are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the boarding or training kennel industry was not clearly closely regulated, and the government had not shown that warrantless searches were necessary. The court also held that the regulations did not impose burdens beyond those commonly borne by owners of businesses who travel away from the locations of their businesses, and thus did not violate the plaintiffs' right to travel. View "Johnson v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff who was bitten by a dog at a facility operated by an animal welfare organization. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the organization, invoking Delaware's "dog bite statute," which imposes strict liability on a dog owner for any injury caused by the dog. The Superior Court of Delaware granted summary judgment in favor of the organization, ruling that the statute does not apply to animal welfare organizations. The court reasoned that the statute was intended to target irresponsible dog owners who keep vicious dogs as pets, not organizations like the defendant.The Superior Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the legislative intent behind the dog bite statute. The court also held that the plaintiff could not establish negligence on the part of the organization without expert testimony, as the standard of care applicable to animal shelters was outside the common knowledge of laypersons.The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the dog bite statute. It found that the statute unambiguously imposes strict liability on any person who owns, keeps, harbors, or is the custodian of a dog, without any exception for animal welfare organizations. The court also disagreed with the lower court's requirement for expert testimony to establish negligence, ruling that the standard of care in handling a domestic animal with known vicious propensities is within the common knowledge of laypersons. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Riad v. Brandywine Valley SPCA, Inc." on Justia Law