Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pine v. State | 889 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App. 1994). |
Mens rea in cruelty conviction may be inferred from circumstances. With regard to warrantless seizure, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure when there is a need to act immediately to protect and preserve life (i.e. "emergency doctrine"). |
Case | |
| IL - Elephant - 5/48-11. Unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-11 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-11 | This Illinois law states that a person commits unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act when he or she knowingly allows for the participation of an African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) or Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 in a traveling animal act. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor. This Section does not apply to an exhibition of elephants at a non-mobile, permanent institution, or other facility. | Statute |
| Irwin v. Degtiarov | 85 Mass.App.Ct. 234 (2014) | 8 N.E.3d 296 (2014) | In this case, Degtiarov's unleashed dog attacked Irwin's dog without provocation. Though Irwin's dog survived, there were significant veterinary costs. Irwin brought this suit for damages in the form of veterinary costs, which were granted by the district court and affirmed by the appellate court. The sole issue on appeal considers whether damages should be capped at the market value of the dog, despite the reasonableness of the veterinary costs necessary to treat the dog's injuries. The appellate court affirms the damages for reasonable veterinary costs that were incurred for damage caused by a dog, even if these costs exceed the market or replacement value of the animal injured by the dog. | Case |
| VA - Exotic Pets - Article 11. Hybrid Canines | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6581 - 6584 | VA ST § 3.2-6581 - 6584 | This section provides Virginia's hybrid canine laws (registered or described to a veterinarian, animal control, or other listed authority as a wolf or coyote-dog cross) Under the section, any locality may, by ordinance, establish a permit system to ensure the adequate confinement and responsible ownership of hybrid canines. Violation of an ordinance enacted pursuant to this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor for the first violation and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any subsequent violation. Further, it is the duty of any animal control officer or other officer who may find a hybrid canine in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such hybrid canine forthwith, whether such hybrid canine bears a tag or not. | Statute |
| OK - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 801; 7 Okl. St. Ann. § 12 - 13; Okl. St. Ann. § 19.1 - 19.2; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 649.3; 25 Okl. St. Ann. § 1452; 41 Okl. St. Ann. § 113.1; 41 Okl. St. Ann. § 113.2 | OK ST T. 7 § 12 - 13; OK ST T. 7 § 19.1 - 19.2; OK ST T. 21 § 649.3; OK ST T. 25 § 1452; OK ST T. 41 § 113.1; OK ST T. 41 § 113.2 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser | (2008) 249 ALR 445 | (2008) 169 FCR 583; [2008] FCAFC 156 |
The trial judge held that the respondent's placing of a ham mixture in the feed of sheep prior to live export was covered by the defence of dominant purpose for environmental protection under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). On appeal, the court held that the respondent's actions were not an attempt at environmental protection but rather sought to prevent what he believed would be cruelty to those animals on board the ship during live export and upon arrival. The case was referred back to the Federal Court for assessment of damages. |
Case |
| Monell v. Department of Social Services | 436 US 658 (1978) |
Female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of the City of New York brought an action challenging the policies of those bodies in requiring pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absence before those leaves were required for medical reasons. The decision of this case addresses issues of immunity. |
Case | |
| Parker v. Parker | 195 P.3d 428 (Or.App.,2008) | 223 Or.App. 137 (2008); 2008 WL 4570581 |
Plaintiff and his 12 year-old quarter horse were visiting defendant at defendant's property when defendant's dog rushed at the horse causing it to run into a steel fence. The horse suffered severe head trauma, which necessitated its later euthanization. Plaintiff filed suit for damages asserting liability under common law negligence and O.R.S. 609.140(1) - the statute that allows an owner to recover double damages where livestock is injured due to being injured, chased, or killed by another person's dog. The appellate court agreed with plaintiff that O.R.S. 609.140(1) creates an statutory cause of action independent from negligence. Further, the court found that plaintiff fell within the class of persons the statute aims to protect because the legislature did not intend to limit the statute's application to property owned by the livestock's owner. |
Case |
| Ley 22.421, 1981 | LEY Nº 22.421 | Ley 22.421 is the the law for the protection of wild fauna. It regulates conservation and the use of the wild fauna in Argentina. This law establishes that the protection of wild fauna is of public interest and therefore all the citizens have the duty to protect it. When a person resulted harmed when executing this duty, they can seek administrative compensation. Article 3 establishes what animals are considered wild fauna, wild animals, wild animals that live under the control of humans, in natural or artificial environments, and domestic animals that, for any reason, return to the wild. Wildlife are deemed to be part of this category in terms of this law, with exception of the animals subject to fishing laws. Other matters regulated by this law include national and international trade and transportation of wild fauna, protection of the environment, hunting and its requirements, and the responsibilities of the authorities in prosecuting crimes and imposing penalties. | Statute | |
| State v. Wright | 393 P.3d 1192 (Or.App.,2017) | 284 Or.App. 641, 2017 WL 1245397 (2017) | Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated animal abuse in the first degree after he drowned all six cats that lived with him in a water-filled trash can. On appeal, defendant challenged the exclusion of evidence that he had an intellectual disability and that he had a character for gentleness toward animals. Defendant asserts such evidence would have shown he did not act with the requisite malicious intent that the state was was required to prove. It would have been relevant in demonstrating his mental state when committing the offenses, according to defendant. The appellate court found that the lower court did not err with regard to excluding defendant's reference to an intellectual disability. The testimony at trial describing his "intellectual disability" was more of a general reference and not relevant to his mental state. On the issue of character evidence of defendant's gentleness toward animals, the appellate assumed the lower court erred because the state conceded it was harmless error in its brief. In agreeing with the state that the error was harmless, the court found any further evidence would have been cumulative because other testimony spoke to defendant's gentle character toward animals. The matter was remanded for resentencing due to errors in sentencing. | Case |