Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amparo Directo D.A.- 454/2021 - Mexico | DA 10417/2021 | The administrative tribunal in Mexico City recognizes companion animals as family members, protected under Article 4 of their Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court of Justice, the tribunal stated that there are different types of families that are protected constitutionally, which includes some families that consider domestic animals their members. This is the decision to an Amparo against a resolution issued by the Institute of Administrative Verification (Instituto de Verificación Administrativa) holding that the owner of a pet boarding facility providing grooming and training services lacked the land use permits to have the commercial establishment. The owner of the pet boarding argued that she would only use 20% of her home for these purposes. After citing comparative law from countries such as Spain, Colombia, and Brazil, the court stated that “currently pets are considered sentient beings that are also part of the family nucleus and require attention and care. Therefore, the service provided by the Amparo promoter has become necessary for people or families also made up of domestic animals, who are looking for a place [to] care for their pets when they are away from their home for a long time” and, as such, these types of families ought to be considered by the authorities. The court stated that domestic animals “play a role of protection, support, company, affection, and care towards humans. Even the reciprocal attachment relationship between people and domestic animals is clear in multispecies families because they are treated as part of the family. They are, in a few words, members of it. Hence the name multispecies or interspecies family.” | Case | ||
| ANIMAL CUSTODY DISPUTES: A GROWING CRACK IN THE “LEGAL THINGHOOD” OF NONHUMAN ANIMALS | Barbara Newell | 6 Animal L. 179 (2000) | Despite the traditional view of animals as mere chattels, courts are increasingly viewing animals as more than "things," recognizing the intrinsic value of animal companions. With the help of organizations such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, case law, local ordinances, and popular attitudes are changing, reflecting the understanding that animals have the capacity to live full mental and emotional lives. This essay tracks these changes, arguing that the time has come to recognize a different legal status for companion animals. | Article | |
| Arguello v. Behmke | 2006 WL 205097 (N.J.Super.Ch.,2006) (not reported in A.2d) |
The adoption of a dog was invalidated and the court ordered its return to the original owner. The shelter's placement of the dog with a new family was invalid because the shelter agreed that it would hold the dog for a certain period of time. |
Case | ||
| Arrington v. Arrington | 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) |
A divorcing couple agreed to visitation of their dog, which the trial court incorporated into the divorce decree, appointing wife as the dog's managing conservator. Husband appealed because he had not been appointed managing conservator; the appellate court stated that dogs are personal property, and the office of managing conservator had been created for human children. While the court held that dogs are personal property under the law, it also stated that visitation of dogs should be allowed. |
Case | ||
| Assal v. Barwick (Kidwell) | A circuit court upheld and enforced a divorce settlement that granted the husband visitation of the couple's dog for one month each summer. After the dog had gotten loose during a past visit and the husband had driven with the dog in the trunk of his car, however, the wife had refused to turn the dog over. The husband later abandoned his fight for visitation with the dog. During the proceedings, however, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed this amicus curiae brief to urge the court to include in its consideration the needs and interests of the dog. The attached brief sets forth reported case decisions and rulings of other courts that have grappled with the view that companion animals are more than mere chattel. | Pleading | |||
| Augillard v. Madura | 257 S.W.3d 494 (Tex.App.-Austin,2008) | 2008 WL 2468689 |
This appeal arises from a suit for conversion filed by Shalanda Augillard alleging that Tiffany Madura and Richard Toro wrongfully exercised dominion and control over Augillard's black cocker spaniel, Jazz, who was recovered from New Orleans in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina. The central issue at trial and the only disputed issue on appeal is whether Augillard's dog, Jazz, and the dog that Madura adopted from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Hope, are in fact the same dog. Augillard asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in disregarding conclusive evidence, including forensic DNA analysis, establishing that Hope and Jazz are the same dog. |
Case | |
| Brief Summary of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals | Kristen Pariser | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This summary briefly examines laws relating to foster-care and non-profit rescue organizations. It discusses concerns that arise relating to contractual liability, local ordinances, and tort claims. | Article | |
| Brinkley v. County of Flagler | 769 So. 2d 468 (2000) |
Appellee county sought to enjoin appellant from mistreating animals by filing a petition against her under Fla. Stat. ch. 828.073 (1997). The animals on appellant's property were removed pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 828.073, a statute giving law enforcement officers and duly appointed humane society agents the right to provide care to animals in distress. The entry onto appellant's property was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement for searches. The hearing after seizure of appellants' animals was sufficient to satisfy appellant's due process rights. |
Case | ||
| C.M. v. E.M. | --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2023 WL 8360025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 28, 2023) | This is a family law case concerning, among other issues, the euthanasia of a family companion animal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated an order in place by putting the family dog down without reason, necessity, and justification, and that the dog was an emotional support animal whose custody had not been determined. Defendant also argues that plaintiff did not allow defendant the opportunity to spend time with the dog before it was put down, and that he suffered emotional distress due to the dog's death. The court found that the euthanasia of the family dog did not violate the order in place, because the companion animal was not classified as "property" or an "asset" under the order in place, and that animals are afforded additional protection under the Family Court Act. Whether the animal was put down unnecessarily could be considered animal cruelty, but that inquiry would need to be determined in a criminal proceeding, and criminal charges were not filed. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff did not violate the order by euthanizing the family dog. | Case | ||
| CA - Divorce - § 2605. Care and ownership of pet animal | West's Ann. Cal. Fam. Code § 2605 | CA FAM § 2605 | This California law, effective January of 2019, allows to court to enter an order, at the request of a party, for a party to care for the pet animal prior to the entry of a final order. The existence of an order providing for the care of a pet animal during the course of proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties shall not have any impact on the court's final determination of ownership of the pet animal. | Statute |