Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pete Mansour v. King County, a municipal corporation; King County Animal Control; King County Licensing and Regulatory Services | In this Washington case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious and ordering her removed from the county. This decision overrides the practice of a dog being presumed guilty until proven innocent in that county. The court found that for Mansour or any other pet owner to prove effectively present his or her case and rebut the evidence against him or her, due process requires that he or she be able to subpoena witnesses and present records. Mr. Mansour was prejudiced in his case because he was not allowed to do so and was not given sufficient notice for the hearing. | Pleading | |||
| Petersheim v. Corum | 815 N.E.2d 1132 (Ohio, 2004) | 2004 WL 1812820 |
Driver struck bull that had wandered onto a public highway and driver was killed. Court of appeals ruled for wife in a wrongful death action against the bull's owner. The owner had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the bull's escape. |
Case | |
| Peterson v. Eichhorn | 189 P.3d 615 (Mont., 2008) | 2008 MT 250, 2008 WL 2738453 (Mont.) |
In this Montana case, the plaintiff brought claims for negligence, strict liability for abnormally dangerous domestic animal, and punitive damages against the defendant horse owner. She alleged that defendant's horse bit her while she was on land defendant used for pasturing the horse that adjoined her land. After the lower court granted summary judgment to the defendant, the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court held that even though the Montana Supreme Court has not adopted the provision of the Second Restatement of Torts regarding an animal owner's strict liability for injury caused by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal, this was not the test case to do it. The court found that Peterson failed to produce any evidence or legal authority that the horse's biting constituted a “dangerous propensity abnormal to her class” to bring her under the Restatement's strict liability. |
Case | |
| Pets in the eye of the storm: Hurricane Katrina Floods The Courts With Pet Custody Disputes | Megan McNabb | 14 Animal Law 71 (2007) |
This article recounts a modern-day King Solomon story: the baby is the animals left behind during Hurricane Katrina; the two mothers claiming ownership of the “baby” are the original owners of the animals and those who adopted the animals after the hurricane; and the role of King Solomon is played by judges in the custody cases that arose after the storm. This article provides a summary of those custody disputes while examining the question of whether those who left their pets behind during Hurricane Katrina have the right to reclaim them from the animals’ new adoptive family. The animals of Hurricane Katrina became trapped in the middle of an unfortunate and complicated situation largely because of defects in our national policies and laws regarding animals and disasters. Therefore, this article also reviews legislative changes that have and should occur concerning pets and disasters, pet adoption, and animals as property. |
Article | |
| Pets: Property and the Paradigm of Protection | Brooke J. Bearup | 3 J. Animal L. 173 (2007) |
This article touches on the evolution of property classifications through history and suggests that the time has arrived for society to re-conceptualize its view on animals as personal property. Re-categorizing animals as equivalent, sentient beings has the potential to affect current search and seizure practices under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This article proposes policy changes that could significantly benefit neglected and abused animals, while still recognizing the fundamental liberty interests of pet owners. |
Article | |
| Pfeil v. Rogers | 757 F.2d 850 (7th Cir. 1985) |
Where sheriffs deputies acted in accordance with applicable state laws, there was no violation of Fourth Amendment rights in the shooting of plaintiff's dogs. |
Case | ||
| Pflaum v. Summit Cty. Animal Control | 92 N.E.3d 132 (OhioApp.2017) | 2017 WL 2467132 (OhioApp.2017) | Defendant appealed a trial court determination that his dog was dangerous under Ohio law. The designation stemmed from an incident in 2015, where defendant's dog and another dog began to fight. A neighbor attempted to break up the fight and was subsequently bitten on the hand. A week after that incident, the local deputy dog warden gave the defendant notice that there was cause to believe his dog was dangerous due to the bite on the hand. The magistrate found the dog did not meet the statutory definition of a dangerous dog. Animal control then appealed the magistrate's decision and the trial court agreed, finding that animal control demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the dog was dangerous. At the Court of Appeals, Pflaum argued that the trial court abused its discretion in overturning the magistrate's decision. The court observed that the neighbor's striking of the Pflaum's dog during the fight fell within the concept of "torment" for purposes of determining provocation. While the neighbor's action were "well-intentioned," the issue of whether a person "tormented" a dog does not depend on whether there was a malicious intent. Thus, there was not clear and convincing evidence that the dog acted without provocation when it caused injury to a person. The trial court was reversed and the cause remanded. | Case | |
| PH - Animal Welfare - Memorandum Issued on the Animal Welfare Act | Memorandum Circular - NO. 2003-153 (on the AWA) |
This Memorandum concerns Republic Act No. 8485, other wise known as the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, passed to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines. The Memorandum was issued because, despite the passage of the Act, reports reaching the Committee on Animal Welfare indicate the continued cruelty to animals, especially dogs, in the country today. |
Statute | ||
| PH - Cruelty - THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT OF 1998 | REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8485 |
It is the purpose of this Act to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment and operations of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping, treating or training of all animals either as objects of trade or as household pets. For purposes of this Act, pet animal shall include birds. |
Statute | ||
| Phillip v. State | 721 S.E.2d 214 (Ga.App., 2011) | 2011 WL 6187084 (Ga.App.); 313 Ga.App. 302 (2011) |
Defendant was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment after entering a non-negotiated guilty plea to 14 counts of dogfighting and two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals. Upon motion, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence was illegal and void because all counts, which were to run concurrently, had the maximum prison sentence of five years. |
Case |