Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Decree 007-2021 - Peru (2021) | Supreme Decree 007-2021, 2021 | The purpose of this law is to describe a series of infractions and penalties regarding forestry and wildlife matters. It establishes who may punish those who violate a regulation and guarantees sanctioning power to the relevant administrations. The law aims to protect the principles in Laws 28763, 27444, and other applicable legislation relevant to the protection and conservation of forestry and wildlife. | Statute | ||
| Supreme Decree 011-84-AG, 1984 - Peru | 011-84-AG | This law deems it necessary to promote the breeding of fighting cattle as a national interest. | Statute | ||
| Supreme Decree 038-2001-AG, 2001 - Rights of Nature (Peru) | Supreme Decree 038-2001-AG | This law establishes the natural legally protected areas and ecosystems of Peru, their importance to scientific, ecological, and sustainable studies and development, and well as their permitted uses. | Statute | ||
| Supreme Decree N° 010-2022-MIDAGRI (Peru) | This Supreme Decree, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation of Peru, approves the Sanitary Regulation for the Production and Commercialization of Genetic Material from Farm Animals. It aims to establish provisions for the implementation of sanitary measures in the production and commercialization of genetic material from these animals, supporting epidemiological surveillance, and the prevention, control, and eradication of diseases affecting animals. All these efforts are designed to prevent the spread and transmission of diseases that could compromise the country's sanitary status. | Statute | |||
| Survey of Damages Measures Recognized in Negligence Cases Involving Animals | Alison M. Rowe | Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol5/iss2/5 | This article will first articulate the various ways in which courts and legislatures have resolved negligence cases involving plaintiffs seeking emotion-based damages for harm done to their companion animals. Second, this article will provide an overview of the public policy issues surrounding recovery for emotional damages in tort cases involving animals. Finally, this article will explain how allowing non-economic damages in companion animal cases involving mere negligence would be unsound public policy and an unwise departure from established law. | Article | |
| Survey of Illinois Law: Liability for Animal-Inflicted Injury | Harold W. Hannah | 24 S. Ill. U. L.J. 693 (2000) |
This article attempts to explain how Illinois law affects the liability of people who are owners or are in control of animals at the time that an injury occurs, as a consequence of that animal’s actions. The section of this article that is related to equine law discusses how there has been a growing concern of stable owners as a result of increased litigation and insurance costs with respect to equine activity injuries. Furthermore, the article mentions that the purpose of the Illinois Equine Activity Liability Act is to alleviate some risk of liability from those involved in equine activities. |
Article | |
| Susan, Russell and Mary Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation | In this petition for a rehearing, respondents argued that the appellate court's decision (Phillips v. Department, 183 Cal.App.3d 372 (1986)) misstates crucial facts concerning the operation of the subject ordinance; that hearings required under the Atascadero ordinances apply to all dogs, not just strays; and that the appellate court may have been misled in its decision to conclude that no notice had been required. | Pleading | |||
| Sutton v. Sutton | 243 S.E.2d 310 (Ga.App. 1978) | 145 Ga.App. 22 (Ga.App. 1978) | Plaintiff brought an action in tort against his father for injuries incurred in attempting to help his father and younger brother recapture an escaped bull. The defendant appeals from judgment for the plaintiff. | Case | |
| Swan Song? Giving a Voice to Mute Swans in the Chesapeake Bay | Michael Markarian and Jonathan R. Lovvorn Esq. | 11 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 115 (Spring, 2004) |
This article discusses the decision by the United States District Court to grant an injunction filed by the Fund for Animals to stop the killing of the federally protected mute swan. The authors suggest that more research needs to be conducted with regard to alleged harm the swans cause in the Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, alternatives to culling the population must be explored as this is required by multiple federal laws. Further, the authors suggest that we should not not blame the very species we introduced centuries ago or artificially arrest the natural progression of the various species in an ecosystem, be they native or exotic. |
Article | |
| Swanson v. Tackling | 335 Ga. App. 810 (2016) | 2016 WL 718465 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2016) | This is an interlocutory appeal by the dog owners (the Swansons) in a personal injury lawsuit for a dog bite. The court in this case overruled the lower court’s ruling that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgement after defendant’s dog bit a child but the dog had never shown a propensity to injure anyone prior to the incident. Plaintiff was suing defendant after defendant’s dog bit plaintiff’s child on the arm and head. Plaintiff argued that defendant is responsible for the injuries caused by the dog because the defendant neglected to properly restrain the dog. The court reversed the lower court’s decision and held in favor of defendant, stating that there was no evidence that was presented to indicate that defendant could have or should have known that the dog would act in this way towards the child. In order to prevail, the plaintiff needed to present evidence that the dog had acted in a similar way in the past. | Case |