Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc. | 275 F.R.D. 346 (D.C., 2011) | 2011 WL 3555761 (D.C., 2011) |
Pet owners sued after their pets were seized, detained, injured, or destroyed by the Humane Society. Pet owners’ attempts to certify a class failed because the claims were not typical. The members of the proposed class allegedly suffered a wide range of deprivations, were provided with different kinds of notice, and claimed distinct injuries. The class certification motion was also denied because the proposed members sought individualized monetary relief. |
Case |
| Scott v. Donkel | 671 So.2d 741 (Ala.Civ.App.,1995) |
In this Alabama case, there was an injury to a non-tenant child by a dog bite, and the defendant was a landlord. The attack occurred off the rented premises in the public street. The action was based upon negligence, that is, a failure to protect against a dangerous condition. The key to such a claim is the knowledge of the landlord. Plaintiff presented no evidence of the landlord being aware of the dog let alone that he knew of its vicious propensity. The court did not find a duty to inspect the premises and discover this information. The court did not reach the point that the attack occurred off the premises. The granting of the motion for summary judgment for the landlord was upheld. |
Case | |
| Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action against the collective Defendants, including Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. This action involved statements and omissions made by the Defendants following a 2013 documentary titled Blackfish. The issues centered on the attendance impact that the documentary had on Seaworld. Company-wide attendance declined in 2013 and 2014, however, several officials of the Company made statements that there was no attendance impact resulting from the documentary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of several experts. The Court ultimately affirmed its tentative rulings, denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s experts, granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Gibson, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis, granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Randolph Bucklin, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. | Case | |
| Manila Conference on Animal Welfare | The Manila Conference on Animal Welfare recognizes: That animal welfare is an issue worth consideration by governments. That the promotion of animalof animal welfare requires collective action and all stakeholders and affected parties must be involved. That work on animal welfare is a continuous process. RECOGNIZING that animals are living, sentient beings and therefore deserve due consideration and respect. | Statute | ||
| AU - Cruelty - Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) | Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 |
The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that--achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible. Attached pdf is the 2003 reprint. |
Statute | |
| FL - Palm Beach County - Chapter 4: Animals (§ 4-24: Animal Care) | Code of Laws and Ordinances Relating to Palm Beach County Government § 4-24 |
This Palm Beach County, Florida ordinance prohibits the act of humane slaughter, as defined by §§ F.S.A. 828.22 and/or 828.23, within earshot or view of the public. A violation of this provision constitutes a civil infraction and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne | 2006 WL 2844232 | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71137 |
Ten non-profit groups sued the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) alleging that the FWS had not adequately explained why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat under the Endangered Species Act, as the FWS had previously been ordered by the court to do. Additionally, the non-profit groups claimed that the FWS had violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by passing regulations which made it easier for federal agencies to thin trees in lynx habitat under the Healthy Forest Initiative. The Court ordered the FWS to explain why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat, but found that the challenged regulations making it easier to thin trees in lynx habitat were permissible. |
Case |
| TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. He concludes that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. | Article | |
| ME - Initiatives - Question 2 (bear hunting) | Question 2 (2004) | This Maine citizen initiated was defeated in the November 2004 election (only 47% voted "yes"). The question posed to voters asked voters, "Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs, except to protect property, public safety or for research?" Per the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions summary, the initiated bill was to prohibit the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, the use of a dog to hunt or pursue bear and the use or setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear except under certain circumstances (such as by state or federal employees to kill or capture depredating bears or by commercial timber operators). | Statute | |
| WV - Ordinances - § 19-20A-8. Vaccinated dogs and cats may run at large; confinement may be required | W. Va. Code, § 19-20A-8 | WV ST § 19-20A-8 | This West Virginia statute provides that dogs or cats vaccinated in compliance with the provisions of this article may run at large in any area or locality unless a county commission or a municipality has adopted and enforced ordinances to prevent dogs from running at large. The state commissioner of agriculture may also enforce an at large ban when a rabies quarantine is in effect. However, any county commission or municipality may not adopt any ordinance which purports to keep any vaccinated dog from running at large while engaged in any lawful hunting activity; from running at large while engaged in any lawful training activity; or from running at large while engaged in any lawful herding or other farm related activity. | Statute |