Results
Displaying 41 - 48 of 48
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencia 10013-103027-2023-00229-00 (0327) - Simona - Colombia (2023) | Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, Sala Mixta, Sentencia del 6 de octubre de 2023, Rad. 10013-103027-2023-00229-00 (0327) | This is the case of “Simona,” the dog in a family that went through a divorce in 2021. The husband, acting as the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit in the third Family Court to establish a visitation arrangement for their beloved companion, “Simona,” who lived with his ex-wife. The plaintiff argued that Simona was an integral part of their family and that both Simona and him had been emotionally impacted since the separation, as the defendant contended that visitations were distressing for Simona. The plaintiff further contended that Simona used to sleep with him and watch movies, but since she could no longer do so, Simona had become depressed and refused to eat. The family court dismissed the case, stating that it fell under the civil court’s jurisdiction. The Superior Tribunal of Bogotá resolved the jurisdictional conflict between the third Family Court and the twenty-seventh Civil Circuit Court. | Case | |
| Sentencia STC1926-2023 | Sentencia STC1926-2023 | Romeo and Salvador, two beloved family dogs that found themselves in the center of a heartbreaking divorce. The divorce resulted in the family judge ordering the foreclosure of the dogs in the divorce proceeding. The plaintiff filed a writ of protection or "Recurso de Tutela" before the Chamber of Civil Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice to protect her rights to family unity, free personality development, and health. Furthermore, she argued that the lower court decision had violated not just her rights but her children's rights, who had developed a filial bond with the dogs, as they are sentient beings and not just mere property. The Court denied the "tutela." It affirmed the lower court decision allowing foreclosure upon companion animals, holding that the "tutela" was not the appropriate legal mechanism to protect procedural guarantees. In his dissenting opinion, Magistrate Aroldo Wilson Quiróz stated that the court had missed a valuable opportunity to address the issue of the multispecies families in Colombia. This novel legal concept is supported under Art. 42 of the Constitution, and that it was the responsibility of the court, as the body of last instance, to delve into this subject, pointing out the fact that even though animals are considered property, they are also sentient beings in the eyes of the law with rights that limit the right to own them. Like in other family cases, the magistrate suggested that courts should address issues such as custody, visitation rights, and alimony payments when companion animals are involved. | Case | |
| State v. Kueck | 593 P.3d 826 (Wash. Ct. App. July 30, 2026) | 2026 WL 2196240 | This appeal arises from Kueck's conviction in Stevens County Superior Court for first-degree animal cruelty following his separation from his wife, T.K., in September 2023. After T.K. left the marital home amid domestic violence allegations, Kueck informed her he was "downsizing" their farm and subsequently shot and buried three horses, including a yearling named Chabi, despite T.K.'s offers to rehome the apparently healthy animals and his deceptive text that "Chabi went to a new home today." The jury acquitted Kueck for the first two horses, which had documented issues, but convicted him for killing Chabi. On appeal, the court held that "manifesting an extreme indifference to life" under RCW 16.52.205(1)(c) requires proof of aggravating circumstances beyond intentional killing, which the evidence supported here through Chabi's health, Kueck's baseless justifications, and the killing's apparent retaliatory or controlling motive. In the unpublished portion, the court rejected Kueck's remaining challenges concerning spousal privilege, prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative error, and affirmed the conviction and nine-month sentence. | Case |
| Sullivan v. Ringland | 376 A.2d 130 (N.H. 1977) | 117 N.H. 596 (1977) | A New Hampshire husband and wife owned their dog jointly when they divorced. The husband planned to take care of the dog while the wife relocated. Instead, he gave the dog away to a friend with a young son. The court held that the wife’s replevin action was not available against the donee of a cotenant. | Case |
| Travis v. Murray | 977 N.Y.S.2d 621 (Sup. Ct. 2013) | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 23405, 42 Misc. 3d 447, 2013 WL 6246374 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) |
A short, childless marriage ended in a custody battle over a dachshund after one spouse allegedly took the dog while the other spouse was away on a business trip. After reviewing the progression of the law in New York and in other states, the court decided to apply a “best for all concerned” standard and to give the parties a full, one-day hearing. The plaintiff’s motion to order the defendant to return the couple's dog and to be awarded “sole residential custody” of the dog was therefore granted. |
Case |
| Vargas v. Vargas | 1999 WL 1244248 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 1999) (unpublished opinion). | Court awarded custody of rottweiler to wife, after considering testimony adduced (husband was not treating the dog very nicely) and the state of the husband’s home (scrap metal yard and fact 5-year-old child visits regularly). This decision was made notwithstanding the fact that dog was gift from wife to husband and the dog was registered to husband with AKC. | Case | |
| Wolf v. Taylor | 197 P.3d 585 (Or. App., 2008) | 224 Or. App. 245 (2008) | This action comes as part of the dissolution of the parties' domestic partnership. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement, which included a provision granting full ownership of Mike, the couple's dog, to Taylor, so long as he agreed to grant Wolf visitation with Mike. Approximately one month later, Wolf had second thoughts and moved to rescind the entire agreement based on the invalidity of the dog visitation provision. Wolf asserts the provision is invalid because it attempts to grant visitation with an item of personal property, and is impossible to perform. This court only answered the question whether invalidity of the dog visitation provision would invalidate the entire agreement, which they answer in the negative because of the severability provision included in the agreement. | Case |
| Zelenka v. Pratte | 912 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. 2018) | 300 Neb. 100 (2018) | Pratte and Zelenka were in a relationship up until their separation in 2015. Zelenka moved out of the residence that they had shared, however, he was unable to retrieve several items of personal property one of which was a French bulldog named Pavlov. Zelenka filed a complaint against Pratte alleging conversion. Zelenka contended that Pavlov was given to him as a birthday gift from Pratte. The district court ordered Pratte to return Pavlov to Zelenka and the rest of the personal property to remain with Pratte. Pratte appealed and Zelenka cross-appealed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska found that although the parties styled their complaint as one for conversion, the parties tried the action as one for replevin and treated the case in all respects as if replevin had been raised in the pleadings, therefore, the Court treated the action as one in which replevin had been raised in the pleadings. The Court ultimately found the following: Zelenka met his burden of proving that Pavlov was a gift from Pratte; Pratte failed to meet his burden of proving that the Niche leather couch, Niche lamps, and French bulldog lamp were gifts from Zelenka; and that those three items should be returned to Zelenka. As for the other items of personal property, the Court found that there was no basis to set aside the district court’s finding that Zelenka failed to meet his burden of proving ownership. The Court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. | Case |