Oregon

Summary: <p> 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&nbsp;six chickens, and the offspring under the age of four months of these chickens, on the lot or parcel on which the&nbsp;dwelling resides; roosters. however, are not allowed. Additionally, these ordinances prohibit&nbsp;residents from slaughtering chickens within the city unless certain conidtions are met. Penalties for violations are also provided. </p>

Summary: <p> Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon.&nbsp; The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent. </p>

Summary: <p> This is an appeal of a county board and circuit court decision ordering destruction of a dog for chasing livestock.&nbsp; On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision and held that the dog must be killed in a humane manner. </p>

Summary: <p> 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.)&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The defendant operated a farm with a herd of 60 cashmere and angora goats on land that bordered a national forest and used her&nbsp;dogs to keep predators at bay.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Further, the trial court erred by disregarding uncontested facts that established defendant's immunity. </p>

Summary: <p> Defendant appealed a conviction for attempted involvement in animal fighting,&nbsp;arguing that the statutes at issue were unconstitutionally vague.&nbsp; Since the defendant admitted he knowingly was among spectators at farm hosting a cockfighting event, the Court of Appeals held that a person of common intelligence could discern that defendant's conduct constituted a substantial step toward involvement in animal fighting. </p>

Summary: <p> Appeal of a circuit court decision finding a summary judgment that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit where a state university student organization and other parties brought suit against the university committee that supervised&nbsp;animal research, including a research proposal for cranial surgery on Macaque monkeys. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had an interest in the governmental decisions of the committee, had established a denial of access related to that interest, thus had standing to bring the suit. </p>

Summary: <p> This is a case involving a train hitting a cow.&nbsp; This case&nbsp;involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow.&nbsp; The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track. </p>

Summary: <p> 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. </p>

Summary: <p> 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,&nbsp;there was&nbsp;find no evidence that would put defendant on notice that&nbsp;the dog&nbsp;had a potentially dangerous propensity to run into people.&nbsp;Further, without some reason to foresee that the dog was likely to run&nbsp;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 <i> per se </i> for violation of the dog control ordinance because this risk was not one anticipated by the ordinance.&nbsp;Reversed. </p>

Summary: <p> Appeal from a district court decision relating to mental state requirements of an animal owner.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals reversed a district court finding which required a higher mental state than negligence in violation of a statute which provides that the owner or custodian of an animal or livestock shall not "permit" animal to run at large. The Court of Appeals found that the offense does not require a culpable mental state. </p>