Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First national report for the Convention on Biological Diversity - BRAZIL | Brazil Ministry of Environment | This is Brazil's first national report for the Convention of Biological Diversity. The report explains the balance between the interests of countries, which are sources of, and conserve, biological diversity (Brazil and other tropical countries) and the nations that are principally users of such biodiversity (the industrialised countries, consumers of the products of biodiversity and of genetic resources for their biotechnological development). | Article | ||
| First Time User Tutorial |
Welcome to the Animal Legal & Historical Center!Wondering where to go first?Try the front page |
Basic page | |||
| Fisher v. Liptak | 1996CarswellAlta33 |
Two pet llamas owned by the plaintiff Fisher were attacked on two separate occasions by dogs, including by a dog owned by the defendant Liptak, causing the death of one llama and, two weeks later, injury to the second llama. After the first attack, Liptak's dog returned covered with saliva and blood, although it had no bleeding wounds; he suspected the dog had been in a fight or attack but did not investigate. His dog was later discovered injuring the second llama. The court ruled that Liptak's finding indications of the first attack put him on notice that the dog had a 'vicious or mischievous propensity to attack other animals,' sufficient to make him strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter, for the second llama's injuries, but not for the first, for which Liptak lacked the requisite knowledge. Similarly, Liptak was not liable in negligence in the first attack, since in that rural area all the local owners let their dogs run at large and Liptak had no prior reason to suspect his dog would attack; the judge did not discuss whether Liptak was liable in negligence for the second attack. |
Case | ||
| Fitch v. Eiseman | 2000 WL 34545801 (Alaska 2000) (unpublished opinion) | The trial court approved a divorcing couple’s agreement for dogs to be with their children (and so travel to the husband's and wife’s houses as part of a shared custody agreement of their children). The wife did not abide by the agreement, so the Supreme Court remanded back to the trial court to determine sole ownership of the dog. | Case | ||
| Fitzgerald v. Varney | 80 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. County Ct. July, 18, 2018) | 60 Misc.3d 943, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 28229 (2018), 2018 WL 3488356 (N.Y. County Ct. July, 18, 2018) | Defendant-Respondents appeal a judgment by the Town of Stony Creek Justice Court declaring their dog to be a "dangerous dog" and ordering euthanasia. On December 30, 2017, defendants’ dog bit their 12-year-old grandson on the upper lip. The child and defendants’ dog were side-by-side on a couch when the child reached over toward the dog. The dog unexpectedly jumped up and bit the child on the left side of the mouth. The child received emergency care and was eventually given injections and stitches to close the wound. Testimony revealed that pain only last the first day after the incident and the stiches dissolved within ten days. The dangerous dog was action was commenced by James Fitzgerald, Sr. who was the dog control officer for the town of Stony Creek, and was completed a few months after the incident. At the close of the hearing, the trial judge found by clear and convincing evidence that the dog was dangerous and caused "serious physical injury." This resulted in the court ordering that the dog be "killed" within 30 days absent any appeal. Here, the defendants do not challenge the dangerous dog determination, but instead challenge the euthanasia order based on a finding of "serious physical injury." Under Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(29), "serious physical injury" means "serious or protracted disfigurement." The court examined two different definitions for "serious physical injury" in the Agriculture and Markets Law and the Penal code as well as relevant cases exploring the nature of a “protracted” injury. Here, this court found the evidence at trial did not show the size of the wound or the number of sutures, nor was there evidence scar was distressing to the victim or any person observing him. As such, there was insufficient evidence to show the injury was of a "protracted" nature. Therefore, the court modified the judgment by reversing the finding of aggravated circumstances and the order for humane euthanasia of the dog. The owners are now required to keep the dog held in leash by an adult 21-years old or older and maintain liability insurance of $50,000 - 100,000. | Case | |
| Five Years of the New Animal Welfare Regime: Lessons Learned from New Zealand's Decision to Modernize Its Animal Welfare Legislation | Peter Sankoff | 11 Animal L. 7 (2005) |
In 1999, New Zealand took an ambitious step to update its animal welfare legislation. The new law included a limited provision to protect Great Apes from scientific experimentation that was heralded internationally as a huge step forward for animals. The Author suggests, however, that New Zealand’s other animals have not fared nearly as well under the new law, and that the notion of New Zealand as the “animal friendly” nation implied by its treatment of primates is more about perception than reality. This article explores the New Zealand experience, and suggests lessons that can be drawn from the modernization of its animal welfare legislation. |
Article | |
| FL - Agriculture & Consumer Services - Department Duties and Enforcement | West's F. S. A. § 585.001 - 585.008 | FL ST § 585.001 - 585.008 | This set of laws explains the powers and duties of the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services in enforcing the Animal Industry laws (Chapter 585). Any person or officer that is charged with a duty under the Animal Industry laws may be compelled to perform the same by mandamus, injunction, or other court-ordered remedy. Department employees are authorized to enter any premises in the state for the purposes of carrying out their duties under the Animal Industry laws and it is illegal for any person to interfere with the discharge of those duties. | Statute | |
| FL - Assistance Animal - Florida's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's F. S. A. § 413.08 - 081; West's F. S. A. § 316.1301, 1303; West's F. S. A. § 760.08; § 760.27; § 817.265 | FL ST § 413.08 - 081; FL ST § 316.1301, 1303; FL ST § 760.08; § 760.27; § 817.265 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. | Statute | |
| FL - Cemetery Regulation - § 497.273. Cemetery companies; authorized functions | West's F. S. A. § 497.273 | This statute describes the services a cemetery may provide and whether the cemetery may provide those services exclusively. It prohibits the commingling of cremated animal remains with human remains, but allows the entombment of the cremated remains of the decedent's pet with the authorization of a legally authorized person. | Statute | ||
| FL - Cruel Confinement - § 21. Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy | FL CONST Art. 10 § 21 | West's F. S. A. Const. Art. 10 § 21 | This ballot proposal, adopted in 2002 and effective in 2008, addresses the inhumane treatment of animals, specifically, pregnant pigs. The law provides that to prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date. This measure passed in the November 2002 election with 54% of the vote. | Statute |