United States

Displaying 141 - 150 of 4235
Titlesort descending Summary
Anderson v. State Department of Natural Resources


A paper manufacturing company sprayed pesticides on their tree grove, but accidentally over sprayed killing some of plaintiff's commercial bees.  The commercial beekeeper sued the paper manufacturing company and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the paper company.  The Supreme Court of Minnesota ultimately reversed the grants of summary judgment on the commercial beekeeper's negligence claims and affirmed dismissal of the nuisance claims. 

Andrews v. City of West Branch Iowa
Andrus v. Allard


The Court holds that the narrow exception in the BGEPA for "possession and transportation" of pre-existing eagles and eagle artifacts does not extend to sale of the those lawfully obtained artifacts.  The legislative history and plain language of the statute is clear on Congress' intent to prohibit any commerce in eagles.  This prohibition on commerce in eagle artifacts does not constitute an unconstitutional taking because the ability to sell the property is but one strand in the owner's bundle of property rights.  The denial of one property right does not automatically equate a taking.  For further discussion on the prohibition in commerce of pre-existing eagle artifacts, see

Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Andrus v. L.A.D.


Patron sued dog owner for damages after an alleged attack.  The Court of Appeals, in reversing a finding for the patron, held that the patron did not establish that the dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm, which precluded a strict liability finding, and, that patron did not prove that the dog owner was negligent.  Reversed.

ANIMAL CONSORTIUM This article will show that sufficient relational interest can exist between a human and companion animal and that this interest is widely accepted in our culture; therefore, financial recovery for the disruption of this relationship is a fair burden to place upon actors in today's world. This proposal does not seek to give any legal rights to companion animals; instead, this is a proposal to allow the law to acknowledge the depth and reality of the bond between humans and animals that exists in millions of families across the country. First, this article sets out the existing categories of damage for recovery when a defendant's tortious actions result in the death of a companion animal. Integral to this discussion is the reality that companion animals are considered property. Courts most often are unwilling to extend financial recovery to include the emotional loss of the owner of an animal. Second, this article will examine the history of the concept of consortium to show how the legal system has come to accept that the compensable harm is not limited to economic consequences, nor is it limited to husband and wife relationships. Third, this article will present information to support the position that companion animals are emotionally and psychologically important to the human members of many families. Fourth, this article will show that animals have already jumped out of the property box in a number of fact patterns, and therefore, it is appropriate to raise their status in this context as well. Fifth, this article will consider the application of the concept of animal consortium in detail as an extension of the common law cause of action. Finally, acknowledging some of the difficulties that courts may have in implementing this proposal, a legislative draft is proposed to accomplish the recovery sought by this article.
Animal Ethics and the Law Concerned with the lack of legal protection for farm animals in the United States, Bernard Rollin argues for the enfranchisment of farm animals. In this article, Rollin also identifies five factors that have called forth new ethics and new laws regarding animals.
Animal Euthanasia
Animal Hospital of Elmont, Inc. v. Gianfrancisco


In this New York case, defendant presented his puppy to plaintiff-animal hospital for treatment. After discussions between about the cost of the care, defendant apparently felt that he would not be allowed to retrieve the puppy from the hospital's possession. As a consequence, plaintiff sent a letter to defendant describing the balance owed, and stating that the hospital would retain the puppy for 10 more days after which it would "take care of the dog in accordance with the legal methods available to dispose of abandoned dogs." The issue on appeal is whether this letter qualified as noticed required by the Agriculture and Markets Act, Sec. 331. The court found that it did not comply with the statutory requirements and thus, plaintiff was responsible for defendant's loss of his puppy valued at $200 at trial. Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment on its complaint for the costs of care amounting to $309.

Animal Industry Interference (Ecoterrorism/Agroterrorism)
Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases

Pages