Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ten Hopen v. Walker | 55 N.W. 657 (Mich. 1893) | 96 Mich. 236 (Mich. 1893) |
Defendant was convicted of wilfully and maliciously killing a dog. On appeal, the court found the instructions proper and held that a plaintiff could recover exemplary damages in addition to market value as compensation, not as punitive damages. The court also found that the killing of a dog is not justified by trespass because there are remedies for destruction of property by animals of another. |
Case |
| Tennant v. Tabor | 89 A.D.3d 1461 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.., 2011) | 2011 WL 5433831 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.); 932 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2011) |
Motorist collided with a horse and sued horse owners for damages. The Supreme Court held that, even if horse owners violated statute requiring them to provide shelter to horse, this did not constitute common-law negligence, which was required for damages. In addition, horse owners were not liable because there was no evidence that horse exhibited propensity to interfere with traffic prior to incident involving motorist. |
Case |
| Tennessee Code 1858: Article VI: Killing Game, Poisoning Fish, Fire Hunting | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1673-1676 (1858) | Tennessee laws from 1858 concerning the hunting of game, poisoning of fish, and the use of fire to hunt. The law establishes the punishment for the above mentioned offenses. | Statute | |
| Tennessee Code: Article V: Cruelty to Animals | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1668-1672 (1858) | Tennessee's laws concerning cruelty to animals from 1858. The laws cover what qualifies as cruelty to animals to the punishment to be given a slave that is cruel to animals. | Statute | |
| Terral v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. | 892 So.2d 732 (La.,2005) |
A motorcyclist hit a dog wandering on the road and sued the defendant under strict liability theory. The court found that the defendant was strictly liable because he owned the dog in fact. Although the dog was originally a stray, the court upheld a finding of ownership because the defendant regularly fed the dog and harbored it on his property. |
Case | |
| Terranova v. United States Dep't of Agric. | 820 F. App'x 279 (5th Cir. 2020) | 2020 WL 4589346 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020) | Petitioners seek review of a decision and order of the USDA/APHIS determining that they violated various provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) and its implementing regulations, imposing civil penalties, and revoking the exhibitor license granted to Terranova Enterprises, Inc. Petitioners were licensees who provide wild animals like tigers and monkeys for movies, circuses, and other entertainment. In 2015 and 2016, APHIS filed complaints against petitioners that they willfully violated multiple provisions of the AWA and knowingly violated a cease and desist order issued in 2011 to avoid future violations of the AWA. After consolidating the complaints, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that petitioners willfully committed four violations, so the ALJ issued a cease and desist order, suspended petitioners' license for 30 days, and assessed a $10,000 penalty and an $11,550 civil penalty for failing to obey the prior cease and desist order. On appeal by both parties to the Judicial Officer of the USDA, petitioners' exhibitor license was revoked and the penalties were increased to $35,000 and $14,850, respectively. On appeal here to the Fifth Circuit, petitioners claim that the determinations of the Judicial Officer were not supported by substantial evidence and that she abused her discretion in revoking their exhibitor license. This court found there was sufficient evidence to support the violations, including failing to allow APHIS officials to conduct compliance investigations and inspections, faulty tiger enclosures, insufficient distance/barriers between tigers and the public, failure to make an environmental enrichment plan, and failings involving tiger enclosure and protection from inclement weather, among other things. With regard to petitioners' claim that the Judicial Officer abused her discretion in revoking the exhibitor license, this court court found that petitioners committed more than one willful violation of the AWA so revocation was not unwarranted or without justification. The court concluded that the USDA Secretary’s order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, and that it was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. | Case |
| Terrence Ing v. American Airlines, a corporation doing business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive |
This California complaint arose from the death of plaintiff's dog while in American Airlines' care. The dog flew from New York to San Francisco in the cargo area. Upon arrival, the dog was alive, but in physical distress. Plaintiff raised eleven causes of action, including gross negligence, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others. |
Pleading | ||
| Test Drilling Service Co. v. Hanor Company | 322 F.Supp.2d 957 (C.D. Ill. 2003) |
Owner of oil and gas mineral rights sued the operators of commercial hog confinement facilities for negligence, claiming that the operator's allowed hog waste to escape the confines of the facility and flow into the mineral rights. The District Court held that plaintiff's alleged damages were not barred by a rule prohibiting recovery of economic loss in tort actions; that defendant's alleged violations were evidence of negligence, but not negligence per se; and that defendant's owed a duty of ordinary care to plaintiff. |
Case | |
| Test Map | Other jurisdictions can be added here in the summary or ... | State map | ||
| Texas Attorney General Letter Opinion 94-071 | Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. LO 94-071 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether staged fights between penned hogs and dogs constitutes a criminal offense. The Assistant Attorney General deemed these staged fights as violating the criminal cruelty laws. |
Case |