Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA - Cathlamet - Breed - Chapter 6.10 
PIT BULL DOGS | CATHLAMET, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 6.10.010 - 6.10.030 (1991) |
It is unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog in Cathlamet, Washington, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of this chapter. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Any pit bull dog found to be the subject of a violation may be confiscated and even destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Captive Wildlife Issues | Policy | ||||
| Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd | (2001) 208 CLR 199 | (2001) 185 ALR 1; (2001) 76 ALJR 1; (2001) 22(19) Leg Rep 11; (2001) 54 IPR 161; (2001) Aust Torts Reports 81-627; [2001] HCA 63 |
The respondent was successful in obtaining an injunction against the appellants from publishing a film displaying possums being stunned and killed at an abattoir. The film had been obtained from a third party while trespassing. The Court found that it was not unconscionable for the appellants to publish the film and a corporation did not have a right to privacy. |
Case | |
| OR - Hunting - Division 64 . Privately Held Exotic and Game Mammals. | OR ADC 635-064-0000 to 0010 | OAR 635-064-0000 to 0010 | It is unlawful to hunt, kill, or attempt to hunt or kill, exotic mammals or game mammals held or obtained by private parties. Exceptions under the statute include the slaughter of such an animal for meat, leather, or fur production, euthanization of such an animal for scientific, health, safety or other valid husbandry concerns, or the department's Wildlife Division Director may authorize any person to hunt or kill such an animal if the Division Director determines it would be in the best interest of sound wildlife management. | Administrative | |
| Rupert v. U.S. | 181 F. 87 (8th Cir. 1910) | 104 C.C.A. 255 (1910) |
Paris N. Rupert, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously deliver to the Frisco Railroad Company, a common carrier, for transportation out of said territory and to the city of Chicago in the state of Illinois, the dead bodies of quail, which said quail had theretofore been killed in the Territory of Oklahoma in violation of the laws of said territory and with the intent and purpose of being shipped and transported out of said territory in violation of the laws of said territory. The court held that the territory of Oklahoma had the authority to provide by legislation, as it did, that wild game, such as quail, should not be shipped out of the state, even though the game was killed during the open season. Further, the act of Congress (the Lacey Act) is valid wherein it is declared that the shipment out of the territory in violation of the territorial law constitutes a crime under the national law. |
Case | |
| Naples v. Miller | No. CIV.A.08C-01-093PLA, 2009 WL 1163504 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2009) | In this case, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the defendant alleging damage to property, which included past and future veterinary bills, emotional distress, mental anguish, and punitive damages caused by the attack of “Ricky”, defendant’s rescue dog to the plaintiff’s terrier “Peanut”. Peanut's veterinary treatment cost over $14,000. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment were filed by both parties. Defendants alleged that veterinary expenses were not compensable in a property damage case. Additionally, defendants argued that there was no basis for recovery for emotional distress and mental anguish as noneconomic damages were not available for damage to personal property either. Finally, defendants contended that facts did not support an argument for punitive damages as this claim required conduct that is "outrageous" or the result of an "evil motive" or a "reckless indifference to the rights of others," Plaintiff’s moved for summary judgment as well. Plaintiff argued that defendants responsibility was based on 7 Del. C. § 1711 that makes the owner of a dog liable in damages for "any loss to person or property." However, the issue as to the measure of damages was not addressed. The court granted partial summary judgment for the defendant. In its opinion, the court stated that “under Delaware law, dogs were seen as personal property, and the damages to Peanut could not be measured as if Peanut was a human being.” As personal property, a dog is “subject to the same measure of damages as a sofa, a car, a rug, a vase, or any other inanimate item of property.” For that reason veterinary expenses in excess of market value and emotional damage could not be recovered. On the punitive damages allegations, the court did not find that the plaintiff had presented any evidence as to the defendant’s conduct that would satisfy the standard of behavior required. | Case | ||
| OH - Initiatives - Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2 (2009) | Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2 (2009) | This ballot issue, entitled the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment, Issue 2, appeared on the November 3, 2009 general election ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The amendment proposed creating a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry. Ohio Issue 3 was approved by voters approved by 63.66% to 36.34%. | Statute | ||
| Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader Recreation Enterprises | LCa 1684?96 |
Court held that holding a fighting match between a human and an alligator was a violation of the Israel Anti-Cruelty laws. |
Case | ||
| Attorney Researcher Tutorial |
Welcome to the Animal Legal & Historical Center – Are You Looking to Do Some Research? |
Basic page | |||
| Downing v. Gully, P.C. | 915 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. App. 1996) |
Appellant dog owners challenged the decision of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Tarrant County (Texas), which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee veterinary clinic in appellants' negligence, misrepresentation, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee veterinary clinic because appellee's veterinarians provided affidavits that were sufficiently factually specific, describing experience, qualifications, and a detailed account of the treatment, so that appellee negated the element of the breach of the standard of care, and because Deceptive Trade Practice Act claims did not apply to state licensed veterinarians. |
Case |