United States

Displaying 1471 - 1480 of 4866
Titlesort descending Summary
Garcia v. Village of Tijeras


Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance of the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico banning the ownership or possession of a breed of dog “known as American Pit Bull Terrier.” The District Court of Bernalillo County upheld the ordinance and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs had notice that the ordinance proscribes the conduct in which they were engaged; thus, it was not void for vagueness. With regard to the argument that the ordinance violated substantive due process, the court found that ordinance was rationally related to legitimate village purpose of protecting the health and safety of the community. Finally, the court found that the ordinance did not violate procedural due process where the ordinance provides that a hearing is held after impoundment to determine whether the dog is a pit bull.
Garshelis v. Bennett This appeal concerns the valuation of a companion animal and the availability of emotional distress damages arising from its wrongful death. The plaintiff sought to recover for the shooting and disposal of her dog, Stanley, advancing multiple tort theories including conversion, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The central legal issue was the proper measure of damages for the loss of a pet, which the court resolved by affirming that, under Idaho law, pets are considered property. Specifically, where a fair market value exists as here, where it was established that Stanley's value was $500, that value is the proper measure for the animal's loss, which precludes a "value to the owner" assessment or loss-of-use damages. Furthermore, the court adhered to precedent limiting the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet strictly to the independent torts of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and not through property-based torts like conversion. While the district court's nominal damages award for intentional infliction of emotional distress was upheld, its dismissal of the negligent infliction claim was reversed due to insufficient findings. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings specifically on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
Garza v. State Carrollton, Texas municipal code prohibited the keeping of more than three pets on property within the city limits. Yvette Garza, a member of an animal rescue organization, challenged the determination that she had violated the city code by keeping more than three dogs. She argued that the code was unconstitutionally vague and that her actions were necessary. The court held that although the term "keep" was not defined in the statute, a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the law because "keep" has a common sense meaning. Garza also failed to produce evidence proving when the scheduled euthanasia of the dogs was going to occur, she therefore failed to establish the elements of her necessity defense.
Geary v. Sullivan County Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc.


In this New York case, plaintiffs surrendered their maltreated horse to defendant Sullivan County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. on March 4, 2005. Shortly thereafter, they commenced this action seeking return of the horse and damages, including punitive damages. Defendants' answer failed to respond to all paragraphs of the 38-paragraph complaint, which included six causes of action, prompting plaintiffs to move for summary judgment on the ground that defendants admitted "all" essential and material facts. At oral argument before this Court, plaintiffs' counsel consented to defendants filing an amended answer. The court found that since this amended pleading will presumably contain denials to all contested allegations in the complaint, plaintiffs' request for summary judgment on the procedural ground that defendants' failed to deny certain facts must fail. Moreover, as correctly noted by Supreme Court, conflicting evidence precludes summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor.
Geer v. Connecticut


Defendant was charged with the possession of game birds, for the purpose of transporting them beyond the state, which birds had been lawfully killed within the state.   The sole issue which the case presents is, was it lawful, under the constitution of the United States (section 8, art. 1) (the Commerce Clause), for the state of Connecticut to allow the killing of birds within the state during a designated open season, to allow such birds, when so killed, to be used, to be sold, and to be bought for use, within the state, and yet to forbid their transportation beyond the state?  The Court held that, aside from the authority of the state, derived from the common ownership of game, and the trust for the benefit of its people which the state exercises in relation thereto, there is another view of the power of the state in regard to the property in game, which is equally conclusive. The right to preserve game flows from the undoubted existence in the state of a police power to that end, which may be none the less efficiently called into play, because, by doing so, interstate commerce may be remotely and indirectly affected.  This decision was later overruled in Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322.
Genetic Engineering and Animals
GENETIC ENGINEERING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS: HUMAN PREROGATIVE OR ANIMAL CRUELTY
Georgia Aquarium v. Pritzker
Georgia’s "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" Summary This document provides of summary of the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" (RDOA) of Georgia, signed into law by Governor Deal in 2012.
Gerofsky v. Passaic County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals


The President of the New Jersey SPCA brought an action to have several county SPCA certificates of authority revoked.  The county SPCAs brought a counterclaim alleging the revocation was beyond the state SPCA's statutory authority.  The trial court revoked one county's certificate of authority, but the Court of Appeals held the revocation was an abuse of discretion.

Pages