Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phillips v. Department Appellant Reply Brief | In their reply brief, Appellants argue respondents' reliance on Simpson v. City of Los Angeles is misplaced. They also argued due process protection applies to all property and that respondents' claims are unsubstantiated. | Pleading | |||
| Phillips v. North Carolina State University | 697 S.E.2d 433 (N.C.App.,2010) |
University operated a horse breeding management facility. Industrial Commission found that University was negligent in broodmare's death that occurred during transport. The Court of Appeals held that mare’s owners were entitled to lost profit for a single breeding cycle. |
Case | ||
| Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. |
These are detailed briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a "dangerous" dog is euthanized. |
Pleading | |||
| Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. | 228 Cal.Rptr. 101 Cal.App. (2 Dist.,1986) | 183 Cal.App.3d 372 (1986) |
In this case, the owners of dog petitioned for writ of mandamus requesting vacation of destruction order and declaration that ordinances under which the dog was seized were unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal held that due process required that owners have hearing prior to seizure of or destruction of dog (a property interest) and that a "courtesy hearing" did not satisfy due process requirements. Further, the court concluded that the ordinances here were unconstitutional for failing to provide for notice and a hearing either before or after the seizure of an uncontrollable biting or vicious dog. |
Case | |
| Philosophy and Animals | Alissa Branham |
Brief Summary of Philosophy and Animals
|
Topical Introduction | ||
| Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine v. Tyson Foods, Inc. | 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 926 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2004) | 119 Cal.App.4th 120, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4705, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6501 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.,2004) |
In this California case, PCRM, a nonprofit health-advocacy organization, filed suit for injunctive relief against Tyson alleging that the company made false and deceptive representations about chicken products that it sold to consumers in California. The complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in two advertising campaigns, which disseminated false and deceptive statements about its products in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500. Tyson filed a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the amendment to the anti-SLAPP statute, which was enacted while the appeal was pending did not apply to actions against sellers of goods as to the representations about or promotions of those goods. Further, by holding that Tyson was not entitled to invoke the anti-SLAPP remedy, the court stated that it did not compromise or prejudice Tyson’s right to raise First Amendment issues in defense of PCRM's suit . |
Case | |
| Pickford v. Masion | 98 P.3d 1232 (Wa. 2004) | 98 P.3d 1232 (Wa. 2004) |
Plaintiffs' dog was mauled by Defendants' dogs and sustained permanent injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs' claims of negligent and malicious infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment and further held the destruction of the companionship relationship could not be extended to dogs. |
Case | |
| Pine v. State | 889 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App. 1994). |
Mens rea in cruelty conviction may be inferred from circumstances. With regard to warrantless seizure, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure when there is a need to act immediately to protect and preserve life (i.e. "emergency doctrine"). |
Case | ||
| Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior | Jamey Medlin | 56 DePaul L. Rev. 1285 (2007) |
This Comment examines the reasons for breed-specific legislation and looks at some of the human factors behind the “breed” problem. It argues that instead of targeting specific breeds, municipalities should enforce existing animal control laws and punish the human behavior that leads to dog attacks. This Comment concludes that laws addressing human behavior, rather than breed bans, are a better long-term solution to further public safety and animal welfare. |
Article | |
| Pitts v. State | 918 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. App. 1995). |
Right of appeal is only available for orders that the animal be sold at public auction. The statutory language does not extend this right to seizure orders. |
Case |
