Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placey v. Placey | 51 So.3d 374 (Ala. Civ. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 2342397 (Ala. Civ. App.) |
The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest. |
Case | |
| Playing Noah | John Compeland Nagle | 82 Minn. L. Rev. 1171 (1998) |
In “Playing Noah,” John Copeland Nagle investigates the difficulty of protecting all endangered species through the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. In doing so, Nagle looks at utilitarian arguments and concludes that these arguments do not justify treating all species equally. Instead, Nagle concludes that religious, moral, or ethical arguments provide a better justification. Specifically, Nagle contends that the book of Genesis provides a compelling case for protecting all endangered species. |
Article | |
| Pleadings & Briefs, Overview | Karstan Lovorn |
This is an outline-overview of the pleadings and briefs on the Web Center. The materials contained in the Web Center are broken down by specific topic with links to the case summaries and actual pleadings documents. |
Article | ||
| Pless v. State | 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App., 2006) | 2006 WL 1237027 (Ga.App.), 279 Ga.App. 798 (2006) | In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court found that the evidence showed that in the months prior to the July 14 and August 1 incidents, Pless's dogs were repeatedly found loose in neighbors' yards and garages. Accordingly, evidence supported the conviction on the charge of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance under § 3-4-7(5). ("Public nuisance" is defined, among other things, as any animal which "[i]s found repeatedly at large."). On certiorari review, the Georgia Supreme Court in State v. Pless, 646 S.E.2d 202 (Ga. 2007) reversed judgment of Pless v. State, 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App. 2006), and the case was then sent to Pless v. State, 648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. App. 2007) on remand. | Case | |
| Pless v. State | 648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. App. 2007) | 286 Ga.App. 235 (2007) |
In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the defendant's conviction with the exception of that portion of his sentence requiring him to reimburse the county for his court-appointed attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, reversed the appellate court's holding and ruled that the trial court was authorized to impose the reimbursement of attorney fees as part of the sentence. On remand, the appellate court vacated that portion of its opinion that reversed the imposition of attorney fees and adopted the Supreme Court's opinion as its own; all other respects of the appellate decision, Pless v. State, 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App., 2006), remain undisturbed. |
Case | |
| Plotnik v. Meihaus | 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) | 208 Cal.App.4th 1590; 2012 WL 3764874 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) |
A long history of bad neighborly relations resulted in the plaintiffs' dog sustaining injuries from being hit with a baseball; the injuries required surgery and post-operative care. While the plaintiffs brought many causes of actions against their neighbors, a father and his two sons, this case is significant in the realm of animal law because it held that a pet owner may recover for emotional distress under the trespass to personal property cause of action. The court, however, would not allow the plaintiffs to recover for their dog's injuries under the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action because they would have recovered duplicative damages for the same transactional event. |
Case | |
| Poarch Creek Band of Indians of Alabama. 8-6-31-Cruelty to Animals | Chapter VI, Title 8, Section 8-6-31 | Under Sec. 8-6-31, cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor. A person who, without justification, knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment by actions defined in the statute commit the crime of cruelty to animals. | Statute | ||
| Poland - Cruelty - Polish Animal Protection Act | OJ No 111, Item 724(1997); No 106, Item 668 (1998) |
The general animal protection law for Poland. Covering all types of animal except hunting and endangered species. |
Statute | ||
| Polar Bears | Sarah Morgan |
Brief Summary of Laws Affecting Polar Bears
|
Topical Introduction | ||
| Police Shooting Pets | Pamela L. Roudebush |
Brief Summary of Police Shooting Pets
|
Topical Introduction |
