Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CULTURAL SOLIPSISM, CULTURAL LENSES, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES, AND ANIMAL ADVOCACY | Thomas G. Kelch | 31 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 403 | This article explores the cultural similarities and differences relating to the relationship between humans and animals in a globalized world. The article acknowledges that cultural differences in a globalized world can have a profound impact on the efficacy of advocacy for the benefit of animals. Attempts in one nation to provide protection for animals can have unintended consequences in our globalized world. The problem that then presents itself is, given the potpourri of human cultures and the need to take a global view of animal rights advocacy, how can animal rights advocates most efficiently and successfully advocate for animals? This article addresses that issue. | Article | |
| Custer v. Coward | 667 S.E.2d 135 (Ga.App.,2008) | 293 Ga.App. 316 (2008); 2008 WL 3551225 |
Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The plaintiffs' 5-year-old child was bitten by the defendants' dog while the plaintiffs were visiting the defendants, who were also their neighbors. While jumping on the defendants' trampoline, the plaintiffs' child fell onto the defendants' dog who bit the child on the leg and would not let go for a few minutes. The plaintiffs contended at trial that the defendants' knowledge that the dog had "Wobbler's Syndrome," a cranial neck instability that causes leg problems, somehow put the defendants on notice of the dog's vicious propensity. However, the court discarded plaintiffs' argument, finding that is no evidence that Butkus had bitten or attempted to bite anyone before the incident. Further, there was no reason for the defendants to believe that the dog's leg condition would make it more apt to attack humans. |
Case | |
| Custody of Pets in Divorce | Tabby McLain |
Brief Summary of Pets in Divorce/Custody Issues |
Topical Introduction | ||
| D. Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar y otros con Ilustre Municipalidad de Viña del Mar - Chile (2015) | 491-2015 | The ‘Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar’ and the owners of ‘Coches Victoria’ filed a complaint or ‘acción de protección’ against Viña del Mar and its Mayor, arguing that municipal decree Nº 11.349, 2014 and the ordinance for the transportation of Passengers in Victoria carriages in Viña del Mar were arbitrary an illegal. The plaintiffs requested the modification of many clauses of the ordinance such as those related to the restriction of schedules and routes, the social evaluation of carriage owners, the requirement of specific technical characteristics for carriages, and the limitation on the number of carriages that a person could own. The Plaintiffs argued that the clauses affected the general interest of the community and the rights of the plaintiffs and their families such as the right to equality, the right against discrimination in the economy, the right to physical and emotional integrity, the right to privacy, and the right to property. The city argued that the statute of limitations had already expired, and that additionally, it had the authority to regulate transportation. Furthermore, the city stated that the ordinance was enacted with the purpose of improving passenger safety and the well-being of the horses. The court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its authority to regulate transportation and finding that the ordinance did not violate any of the constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the ordinance was upheld. | Case | ||
| Dallas Safari Club v. Bernhardt | 453 F. Supp. 3d 391 (D.D.C. 2020) | 2020 WL 1809181 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 2020) | Individual elephant sport hunters and their hunting organizations (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) seeking to import their sport-hunted elephant trophies from Africa into the United States. The Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the Service to process pending and subsequently filed permit applications. The African Elephant is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and is also a species that is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”). All African elephant trophy imports require the Service to make an enhancement finding, meaning that the killing of the trophy animal will enhance the survival of the species, and issue an ESA permit. Additionally, certain African elephant trophy imports require a non-detriment finding and a CITES import permit. Historically, the Service made periodic countrywide enhancement and non-detriment findings, however, this came to a halt due to a Presidential tweet surrounding media criticism over the Service’s decision to lift the suspension on Zimbabwe’s ESA enhancement finding. The Court found that injunctive relief was not warranted because the Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm as to any Plaintiff. The individual Plaintiffs argued that they had suffered both emotional harm and economic harm. However, the Plaintiffs were on notice that their applications could take a significant amount of time to process. Additionally, the emotional distress claimed by the Plaintiffs would be alleviated when the Service issues a decision either granting or denying their permit applications, therefore, the harm that the Plaintiffs were claiming was not irreparable. The Court found that the individual hunter Plaintiffs’ alleged emotional and economic injuries were insufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction. The organizational Plaintiffs argued that they each were suffering irreparable harm derivatively because the Service’s delay in processing permit applications would decrease the popularity of sport hunting in Africa and cause a decrease in funding for conservation efforts. The problem was that the organizational Plaintiffs offered no proof to substantiate this argument. The Court ultimately held that in light of the disruptions caused by COVID-19 and the diminished capacity of the Service to process permit applications during this unprecedented time, it would be unwise and not in the public interest to order the expeditious processing of sport trophy permit applications. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. | Case | |
| Damages for the Injuring or Killing of an Animal in Swiss Law | Eveline Schmeider Kayasseh | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
A discussion of the state of the Swiss law on the issue of damages for companion animals after the changes of the 2003 legislation (in English). |
Article | |
| Dancy v. State | 287 So. 3d 931 (Miss. 2020) | 2020 WL 240457 (Miss. Jan. 16 , 2020) | The Justice Court of Union County found Michael Dancy guilty of three counts of animal cruelty and ordered the permanent forfeiture of Dancy’s six horses, four cats, and three dogs. Dancy appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ordered that the animals be permanently forfeited and found Dancy guilty. The circuit court also ordered Dancy to pay $39,225 for care and boarding costs for the horses. Dancy subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Essentially, Dancy failed to provide adequate shelter, food, and water for the animals. The Court found that the circuit court properly released the animals to an animal protection organization. The Court also found that the reimbursement order was permissible. Two of Dancy’s three convictions were for violations of the same statute regarding simple cruelty, one for his four cats and one for his three dogs. The Court held that, according to the statute's plain language, Dancy’s cruelty to a combination of dogs and cats occurring at the same time "shall constitute a single offense." Thus, the State cannot punish Dancy twice for the same offense without violating his right against double jeopardy. For that reason, the court vacated Dancy’s second conviction of simple cruelty. The court affirmed the permanent forfeiture and reimbursement order and his other cruelty conviction. | Case | |
| Dangerous Dog Laws: Failing to Give Mans Best Friend a Fair Shake at Justice | Cynthia A. McNeely & Sarah A. Lindquist | 3 J. Animal L. 99 (2007) |
Compared to other non-human animals, dogs generally share a privileged relationship with humans. Recent government trends have been to classify dogs “dangerous” to force “irresponsible owners” to better control their dogs. While some “owners” are undeniably irresponsible and deserve to be held accountable, a fair analysis of some of the factual situations underlying dangerous dog classifications indicates that too many local governments declare dogs dangerous who are not truly dangerous. With the United States human population now at more than 300 million, it is foreseeable that this trend is only going to continue as developable land decreases, forcing humans to live closer together and to come into greater contact with neighbors' dogs. |
Article | |
| Dangerous Dogs in Canadian Law | Jacquelyn A. Shaw | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This detailed legal discussion focuses on the Canadian legal approaches to dog-related injuries. The traditional common law doctrines of scienter and negligence are discussed, and compared with the legislative approaches of Canada's provinces and territories as well as Canadian federal criminal law. The article also discusses the similarities and differences between Canada's and the United States' incidence of dog-related injuries and some possible reasons for the differences. |
Article | |
| Daniele v Weissenberger | 2002 WL 31813949,136 A Crim R 390 | 2002 WASCA 346 |
Court uphold conviction for failure to provide food and water for horses. Even thought not the owner, he was the responsible party. Sentence of $3,000 fine and suspended 3 month was not excessive. |
Case |
