Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Swap Meet Laws | Zoe Friedland |
Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws
|
Topical Introduction | ||
| Swartz v. Heartland Equine Rescue | 940 F.3d 387 (7th Cir., 2019) | 2019 WL 5091876 (7th Cir. Oct. 11, 2019) | The Plaintiff, Jamie and Sandra Swartz, acquired several horses, goats, and a donkey to keep on their farm in Indiana. In April of 2013, the county’s animal control officer, Randy Lee, called a veterinarian to help evaluate a thin horse that had been observed on the Swartzes’ property. Lee and the veterinarian visited the Swartzes’ on multiple occasions. The veterinarian became worried on its final visit that the Swartzes’ were not properly caring for the animals. Lee used the veterinarian’s Animal Case Welfare Reports to support a finding of probable cause to seize the animals. Subsequently, the Superior Court of Indiana entered an order to seize the animals. On June 20, 2014, the state of Indiana filed three counts of animal cruelty charges against the Swartzes. However, the state deferred prosecuting the Swartzes due to a pretrial diversion agreement. The Swartzes filed this federal lawsuit alleging that the defendants acted in concert to cause their livestock to be seized without probable cause and distributed the animals to a sanctuary and equine rescue based on false information contrary to the 4th and 14th amendments. The district court dismissed the Swartzes' claims to which, they appealed. The Court of Appeals focused on whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Swartzes’ claims. The Court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which prevents lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by those who lose in state court challenging state court judgments. Due to the fact that the Swartzes’ alleged injury was directly caused by the state court’s orders, Rooker-Feldman barred federal review. The Swartzes also must have had a reasonable opportunity to litigate their claims in state court for the bar to apply. The Court, after reviewing the record, showed that the Swartzes had multiple opportunities to litigate whether the animals should have been seized, thus Rooker-Feldman applied. The case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine at the outset. The Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Case | |
| Sweden - Cruelty - The Sweden Animal Welfare Act | SFS 1998:56 |
The Swedish Animal Welfare Act applies to the care and treatment of domestic animals, and other animals if they are kept in captivity or are used for any of the purposes referred to in section 19 (generally, scientific uses). It provides that animals shall be treated well and shall be protected from unnecessary suffering and disease, among other things. |
Statute | ||
| Sweden - Scientific Research - Swedish Animal Welfare Ordinance | SFS 1988:539 |
This is one of two main pieces of animal welfare legislation in Sweden. It has been edited to contain mostly material relating to animal research. |
Statute | ||
| Swido v. Lafayette Insurance Co. | 16 So.2d 399 (La.App. 3 Cir., 2005) | 2005 WL 2864698 (La.App. 3 Cir.), 2004-1674 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05) |
In this Louisiana case, a prospective horse buyer filed an action against the prior sellers and their insurer to recover for injuries when she attempted to ride a horse offered for sale by the initial buyer. At the time of the injury, the horse was under the custody of the original sellers who were paid an additional amount to have the horse trained. The Court of Appeal held that sale of horse was perfected when the first buyer paid the sale price, even though the first buyer paid an additional amount for the sellers to finish training the horse. On the negligence issue, the court found the "green-broke" horse did not present an unreasonable risk of harm when the potential buyer attempted to ride it bareback as to assign strict liability to the prior sellers who had custody of the horse. |
Case | |
| Swilley v. State | 465 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 3637850 (Tex. App. 2015) | In the indictment, the State alleged Appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly tortured or in a cruel manner killed or caused serious bodily injury to an animal by shooting a dog with a crossbow, a state jail felony. The dog in question was a stray, which fell within the statutory definition of an “animal.” After a jury found Appellant guilty, the trial court assessed his punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail. On appeal, Appellant contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after the jury heard evidence of an extraneous offense also involving cruelty to animals. Since the video that mentioned the extraneous offense was admitted without objection, the court held the Appellant waived the error and the trial court did not err by denying Appellant's motion for mistrial or by giving the instruction to disregard and overrule Appellant's first issue. Appellant further asserted the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court, however, held the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellant intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly tortured or in a cruel manner killed or caused serious bodily injury to an animal by shooting it with a crossbow. The trial court's judgment was therefore affirmed. | Case | |
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Animal Protection Ordinance Minimum Requirements | Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981 | The measurements given in Appendix 1 refer to light areas free of any obstacle. They may be reduced only by rounding of the corners or by feeding and watering appliances positioned in the corners. The measurements given between the brackets are minimum values for existing installations which existed on July 1, 1981 already and, under Article 76, do not need to be adapted. | Statute | ||
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Federal Act and Ordinance on Animal Cruelty | Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981 |
The following is one of two pieces of Swiss legislation concerning animal welfare. It is highly comprehensive and covers all aspects of animal welfare including but not limited to scientific research, farming, treatment of pets, national and international animal sales. This Act clearly states that no one shall unjustifiably expose animals to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear. Regulations on Animal Welfare based on the Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection. This piece of legislation is comprehensive, including laws on animal husbandry, animal research, companion animals, breeding, transport and slaughter. |
Statute | ||
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance | Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981 |
Regulations on Animal Welfare based on the Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection. This piece of legislation is comprehensive, including laws on animal husbandry, animal research, companion animals, breeding, transport and slaughter. |
Statute | ||
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection of March 9, 1978 | Swiss APA 1978 |
The following is one of two pieces of Swiss legislation concerning animal welfare. It is highly comprehensive and covers all aspects of animal welfare including but not limited to scientific research, farming, treatment of pets, national and international animal sales. This Act clearly states that no one shall unjustifiably expose animals to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear. |
Statute |
