Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencia C-439, 2011 | Sentencia C-439, 2011 | This is an unconstitutionality claim against Article 87 of Ley 769, 2002 (Trafic Code), relating the transportation of animals on vehicles of public transportation. Article 87 of Ley 769, established that only guide dogs could travel in this type of transportation when accompanying a blind person. The Plaintiff argued that this Article, which prohibited the transportation of animals on vehicles like buses and taxis, violated the right to equality, rights to personal and family privacy, right to free development of personality, freedom of locomotion, and private property. The court concluded that there was a violation to the right to free development of personality, freedom to locomotion, and to private property of the owners of domestic animals. The court added domestic animals as an exception to article 87, of Ley 769, meaning that this prohibition still remains for specimens of the wild fauna. Domestic animals now can travel on vehicles of public transportation, so long they are transported in conditions of health, safety, comfort and tranquility according to the applicable rules. The court also considered that a pertinent regulation was necessary to establish the requirements to transport animals on public vehicles. | Case | ||
| Eckhart v. Department of Agriculture | 8 A.3d 401(Pa. Commw. Ct., 2010) | 2010 WL 4596316 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) |
A dog kennel operator acquired 30 dogs while under a revised notice to cease and desist operating a kennel and from buying dogs. The Commonwealth Court affirmed fines imposed by the Department of Agriculture, holding that the fines for violation of the dog law were not excessive or unreasonable; that fines for failure to comply with conditions of the revised notice were not unconstitutionally excessive or unreasonable; and that enforcement of orders by Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement pending appeal were not staid by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. |
Case | |
| WI - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. A. 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | WI ST 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | These Wisconsin statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include dog licensing provisions, hunting laws impacting dogs, and seizure of dogs by humane officers. | Statute | |
| Propes v. Griffith | 25 S.W.3d 544 (Mo.App. W.D., 2000) |
At issue on this appeal to a punitive damages award, is whether defendant's conduct in shooting her neighbors' two dogs was privileged under a Missouri statute that allows a livestock owner to kill dogs that are in the act of chasing sheep. The court held that there was absolutely no evidence indicating the Propes' dogs, or for that matter that any dog, was the cause of the previous attack on the Griffiths' sheep and more sheep were attacked after the dogs had been euthanized. Upon review, the court held that the punishment and deterrence of Mrs. Griffith's conduct is the precise reason for assessing punitive damages and the award of punitive damages was not arbitrary. |
Case | ||
| PA - Hunting - § 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2302 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2302 | This reflects Pennsylvania's hunter harassment law. It is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title. Violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree. A person adversely affected by prohibited activities may bring an action to restrain such conduct and to recover damages. | Statute | |
| Matter of Ware | --- P.3d ----, 2018 WL 3120370 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2018) | No. 50285-2-II | After the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office's decided not to issue charges in an animal abuse case, two private citizens sought to independently initiate criminal charges. One person filed a petition for a citizen's complaint in district court and, after that was denied, another person filed a petition to summon a grand jury. On appeal, those appellants argue that the lower court erred in not granting their petitions. The animal cruelty claim stems from an incident in 2016, where a woman filed a report with police stating that a neighbor had killed her mother's cat by throwing a rock at the cat and stabbing it with a knife. Witnesses gave similar account of the abuse of the cat by the neighbor. The responding police officer then determined that there was probable cause to arrest the suspect for first degree animal cruelty. The officer found the cat's body and photographed the injuries, although the officer could not determine whether the cat had been stabbed. Subsequently, the prosecuting attorney's office declined to file charges because the actions related to the animal's death were unclear. Additionally, the cat's body was not collected at the scene to sustain a charge. | Case | |
| AK - Exotic Pets - 5 AAC 92.030. Possession of wolf and wild cat hybrids prohibited. | 5 AK ADC 92.030 | 5 AAC 92.030 | This Alaska regulation makes it unlawful to possess, sell, purchase, or transfer a wolf or wild cat hybrid without a permit. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the person possessed the animal as a pet before July 23, 2002 in the case of a wolf-dog hybrid and followed other listed actions. A wild cat hybrid is defined as the mating of a domestic cat with a wild cat or hybrid that is of four generations or less wild cat. It is an affirmative defense to illegal possession of a wild cat hybrid when the owner shows proof of the pedigree showing the previous four generations or the animal is at least four generations removed from a wild ancestor. | Administrative | |
| People v. Arcidicono | 75 Misc. 2d 294 ((N.Y.Dist.Ct. 1973) | 347 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y.Dist.Ct. 1973) |
The court held the bailee of a horse liable for failing to provide necessary sustenance to the horse, even though the owner of the horses had refused to pay for the necessary feed. |
Case | |
| UT - Assistance animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | U.C.A. 1953 § 26B-6-801 - 805; § 41-6a-1007; § 18-1-3; § 76-9-307; § 78B-3-701 - 703; § 10-8-65; § 17-50-336; § 53G-9-211 | UT ST § 26B-6-801 - 805; § 41-6a-1007; § 18-1-3; § 76-9-307; § 78B-3-701 - 703; § 10-8-65; § 17-50-336; § 53G-9-211 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |