Sec. 2. (a) This subsection applies in a township for
which the board of county commissioners has adopted an ordinance
that allows domestic animals to run at large in unenclosed public areas.
If a domestic animal breaks into an enclosure or enters upon the
property of another person that is enclosed by a lawful fence, the
person injured by the actions of the domestic animal may recover the
amount of damage done.
(b) This subsection applies in a township for which the board of
county commissioners has not adopted an ordinance that allows
domestic animals to run at large in unenclosed public areas. If a
domestic animal breaks into an enclosure or enters upon the property
of another person, it is not necessary for the person injured by the
actions of the domestic animal to allege or prove the existence of a
lawful fence to recover for the damage done.
[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-10-2-2.]
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.11.
Notes of Decisions
John Belork v. Robin Latimer, Davis Twp. Tr. & DMK&H Farms, Inc. (rehearing), 54 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “[17] Latimer contends that Indiana common law places a duty upon the owner of an animal to confine it, that this principle is codified at Ind. Code § 32-26-2-2 ,4 Belork conceded that the intention of the fence is to contain his cattle on his property, and that he is solely…”
John Belork v. Robin Latimer, Davis Twp. Tr. & DMK&H Farms, Inc., 47 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “Latimer argues that Indiana common law places a duty upon the owner of an animal to confíne it, that this principle is codified at Ind.Code § 32-26-2-2, 4 that Belork conceded that the intention of the fence is to contain his cattle on his property, and that he is solely…”
— Ind. Code § 32-26-2-2(a) — 1 case
John Belork v. Robin Latimer, Davis Twp. Tr. & DMK&H Farms, Inc., 47 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
“Latimer argues that Indiana common law places a duty upon the owner of an animal to confíne it, that this principle is codified at Ind.Code § 32-26-2-2, 4 that Belork conceded that the intention of the fence is to contain his cattle on his property, and that he is solely…”
— Ind. Code § 32-26-2-2(b) — 2 cases
John Belork v. Robin Latimer, Davis Twp. Tr. & DMK&H Farms, Inc. (rehearing), 54 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
“[17] Latimer contends that Indiana common law places a duty upon the owner of an animal to confine it, that this principle is codified at Ind. Code § 32-26-2-2 ,4 Belork conceded that the intention of the fence is to contain his cattle on his property, and that he is solely…”
John Belork v. Robin Latimer, Davis Twp. Tr. & DMK&H Farms, Inc., 47 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
“Latimer argues that Indiana common law places a duty upon the owner of an animal to confíne it, that this principle is codified at Ind.Code § 32-26-2-2, 4 that Belork conceded that the intention of the fence is to contain his cattle on his property, and that he is solely…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.