Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rivero v. Humane Soc. of Fayette County | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 18704 (W.D.Pa.) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution after Defendant dog control officers removed Plaintiffs’ dog from their home during an investigation into a report of a dead dog. The United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania granted Defendant Township’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations, standing alone, do not state a claim against Defendant-Township, and that Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for their state law claims. | Case | ||
| Anderson v. Creighton | 483 US 635 (1987) |
Suit was brought against FBI agent seeking damages resulting from warrantless search of residents' home. |
Case | ||
| TX - Assault, sexual of animal - § 21.09. Bestiality | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 21.09 | TX PENAL § 21.09 | This law represents Texas' prohibition on bestiality, which was enacted in 2017. A person commits this offense if he or she engages in listed contact with an animal. Additionally, a person violates this law if he or she: possesses or provides an animal for such purpose; organizes, promotes or participates in such conduct; permits such conduct at premises under his or her control; engages in conduct listed described in the presence of a child younger than 18 years of age; or advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that the animal be used in this state for conduct described. Violation is a state jail felony unless the conduct is done in the presence of a child younger than 18 or the conduct results in serious bodily injury or death of the animal; the offense is a felony of the second degree in those cases. | Statute | |
| Bowden v. Monroe County Commission | 800 S.E.2d 252 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | 239 W. Va. 214, 2017 WL 2224052 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | The Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her late husband, filed a complaint after he was attacked and killed by American Pit Bull Terriers while taking a walk near his home. The Plaintiff filed against the Defendants, Monroe County, the County Dog Warden Ms. Green, and other defendants, alleging, negligence in performing their statutory duties by allowing vicious dogs to remain at large, and wrongful death. The Plaintiff also sought punitive damages. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and asserted a defense based upon the public duty doctrine. The Circuit Court, Monroe County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit Court and remanded. The Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed for determining whether a special relationship existed between the county and the victim such as whether: (1) the dog warden assumed an affirmative duty to act on the victim's behalf, (2) the dog warden was aware that inaction could lead to harm, (3) the dog warden had direct contact with the victim's wife regarding vicious nature of dogs; and (4) the victim's wife justifiably relied on assurances from dog warden. | Case | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 2 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. II (2006)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| In the Matter of Kerlin | 376 A.2d 939 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1977) |
Respondent Raymond Kerlin, D.V.M., appealed a decision of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board), finding him guilty of "gross malpractice or gross neglect" in the practice of veterinary medicine after an employee at his office (his wife) stated that the office could not treat a deathly ill kitten after the owners requested payment by credit (apparently not accepted at the office). In this case, the court observed nothing in the findings of facts to support a conclusion that respondent was aware of the exchange which occurred between the kitten’s owner and Mrs. Kerlin in time for him to have prevented the situation or to have taken remedial steps. Nothing adduced at trial proved that Dr. Kerlin followed the policy of rejecting requests for emergency treatment on credit. Thus, the court concluded that the State failed to establish that respondent was guilty of a violation or of conduct warranting disciplinary action for "gross malpractice", and the decision of the Board was reversed. |
Case | ||
| Auster v. Norwalk | 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2008) | 2008 WL 726289 (Conn. 2008) , 286 Conn. 152 (2008) |
Plaintiff, while on church premises, was bitten by a church employee's dog. Plaintiff seeks damages from church under the state dog bite statute, which imposes strict liability for damages on the dog's keeper. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, reasoning that a non-owner must be responsible for maintaining and controlling the dog at the time the damage is done in order to be held liable under the statute. |
Case | |
| Colombia, LEY 576, 2000, Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. | LEY 576, 2000 | This law reflects the Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. This law contains the guidelines and standards of the veterinary professions that must be followed by veterinarians and veterinary zoo technicians to avoid veterinary malpractice liability. Ley 576, prescribes the type of behaviors that are not allowed and the circumstances were such behaviors could take place. In addition, this law also creates the tribunal of professional ethics for these professions, and the legal procedure that must be followed by this tribunal in the undertaking of investigations and hearing of users’ complaints. Furthermore, this law regulates the ethical behavior, and responsibilities of the veterinary professionals towards their clients, other colleagues, veterinary assistants, natural resources, and professional associations. | Statute | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 1 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 18, Issue 1 (Fall 2011)ARTICLESTHE STATUTORY PET TRUST : RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NEW UNIFORM LAW BASED ON THE PAST TWENTY-ONE YEARS |
Policy | |||
| ME - Fish and Wildlife - Chapter 7. Regulations for Wildlife in Captivity | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | This set of Maine regulations concerns the keeping of captive wildlife. A permit is generally required for importation, possession, propagation, rehabilitation, and exhibition of wildlife in the state. Wildlife held in captivity must be confined, contained, controlled, and sheltered in such a way as to protect it, and to protect property of others and the health and safety of the public. Section 7.11 provides the conditions and restrictions under the permit. Section 7.12 states that no primate shall be permitted unless the applicant/permit holder demonstrates a physical aide legitimate need for physical aide from a primate, and the animal in question is specifically trained for such purposes ( or the applicant must be providing foster care or training for the primate under direction or supervision of a recognized authority for same). | Administrative |