Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Estate of Ronald W. Callan, Jr. | This Tennessee order appoints a guardian ad litem for the custody and care of decedent, Ronald W. Callan Jr.'s, dog. According to the order, the guardian ad litem (an attorney in this case) acts not as an advocate for the dog, but rather has a duty to determine what is in the dog's best welfare. Further, the guardian is given unlimited access to the dog and has the right to inspect where the dog is being sheltered. He can also inspect all veterinary records and speak with the dog's veterinarian. | Pleading | ||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Espy | 23 F.3d 496 (C.A.D.C.,1994) | 306 U.S.App.D.C. 188 (C.A.D.C.,1994) |
In this case, animal welfare groups and two individuals challenged the regulation promulgated by Department of Agriculture that failed to include birds, rats, and mice as “animals” within meaning of Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (FLAWA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied defendant's motion to dismiss, and subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs could not demonstrate both constitutional standing to sue and statutory right to judicial review under the APA. The Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to dismiss.
|
Case |
| Lundy v. California Realty | 216 Cal.Rptr. 575 (Cal.App.4.Dist.) | 170 Cal.App.3d 813 (Cal.App.4.Dist.) |
The Court of Appeals held that an owner of a dog may be held liable for injuries inflicted by it on another person without any showing the dog had any especially dangerous propensities or that the owner knew of any such dangerous propensities. However, to impose liability on someone other than the owner, even a keeper, previous knowledge of the dog's vicious nature must appear. Aside from the rental agreement, the property owners knew nothing whatever about the dog. Thus, the facts before the trial court fell far short of creating a triable issue of fact as to defendant property owners' knowledge of any dangerous propensities on the part of the tenant's dog. "Neither do we believe judicial notice may be taken that all German shepherds are dangerous. Nor can defendants' knowledge of any dangerous propensity of the dog be inferred simply because they knew his name was Thunder." |
Case |
| IN - Cow Slaughter - THE GUJARAT ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1954 | LXXII of 1954 | The Act, specific to the western Indian state of Gujarat, prohibits the slaughter of cattle. A person transporting cattle from one region or the state to another is deemed to be transporting them for slaughter unless they are able to prove otherwise. Persons are prohibited from selling, storing, transporting or offering for sale beef or beef products. Animals other than cattle may be slaughtered, but may be slaughtered only after a certificate is issued by the Competent Authority. Offences under this Act are cognizable—this means that offenders may be arrested without a warrant. Offences under this Act carry with them imprisonment or fines. | Statute | |
| City of Cleveland v. Turner | --- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 3974089 (Ohio Ct. App., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-3378 (2019) | Defendant was convicted by bench trial of one count of sexual conduct with an animal (bestiality) in violation of R.C. 959.21(B). He was sentenced to 90 days in jail (with credit for time served), a $750 fine, with five years of inactive community control that included no contact with animals and random home inspections by the Animal Protection League (APL). The evidence supporting his conviction came from explicit letters defendant wrote to his boyfriend (who was incarcerated at the time) that described acts of bestiality. Defendant was also a sex offender parolee at the time of the letter writing. The letter, which was intercepted by jail officials, recounted a sexual act defendant engaged in with a dog that was under his care. Other similarly explicit letters were entered as evidence. In addition to the letters, the dog's owner testified that she left her dog with defendant and, after picking up the dog, the dog's behavior markedly changed from friendly to anxious and afraid. In addition, the dog was skittish for many days after, licked her genitals excessively, and was uncomfortable with any person near her backside, including the veterinarian. On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred by admitting his extrajudicial statements without independent evidence of a crime. Specifically, defendant contends the city failed to establish the corpus delicti to permit introduction of his purported confession. The court noted that this was a case of first impression since there is no Ohio case law that has analyzed the corpus delicti issue in the context of R.C. 959.21. Relying on the Indiana case of Shinnock v. State, 76 N.E.3d 841 (Ind.2017), this court found that while there was no direct evidence of a crime against the dog, the circumstantial evidence corroborates defendant's statements in his letter. The corpus delicti rule requires that the prosecution supply some evidence of a crime to admit the extrajudicial statements. Here, the city did that with the dog owner's testimony concerning the dog's altered behavior after being left alone with defendant. The court also found the evidence, while circumstantial, withstood a sufficiency of evidence challenge by defendant on appeal. On the issue of sentencing and random home inspections as a condition of his community control sanctions, the court found that the trial court did not have "reasonable grounds" to order warrantless searches of real property for a misdemeanor conviction. The finding of guilt for defendant's bestiality conviction was affirmed, but the condition of community control sanction regarding random home inspections was reversed and remanded. | Case |
| Australia | Policy | |||
| Canada - Alberta - Service Dogs Act | S.A. 2007, c. S-7.5 | This Alberta, Canada law provides that no person shall deny to any person the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted, or discriminate against any person for the reason that the person is a disabled person accompanied by a service dog or a certified dog-trainer accompanied by a dog in training. The law goes into effect January of 2009. | Statute | |
| NH - Moultonbourough - An Ordinance Relative to Dog Control Regulation | ORDINANCE TOWN OF MOULTONBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE.§§ 1.1 - 1.7 |
The purpose of Moultonborough, New Hampshire's Leash Law is to keep all dogs under their owners' control in order to ensure against injury to persons, damages to property, or the creation of a nuisance. It is therefore unlawful to permit any dog to run at large in the town of Moultonborough. Anyone who violates this ordinance will be punished by a fine of $25 or more. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Florida Key Deer v. Paulison | 522 F.3d 1133 (C.A.11(Fla.), 2008) | 2008 WL 842423 (C.A.11(Fla.)) |
FEMA, under the National Flood Insurance Program, issues insurance to promote new development in flooded areas. Plaintiffs sought to compel FEMA to enter into ESA consultation with FWS, and once that consultation occurred, amended their complaint to challenge the sufficiency of the FWS' biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternatives. The Eleventh Circuit held for the plaintiffs, reasoning that FEMA had not sufficiently complied with the obligation on federal agencies to carry out their programs consistent with the conservation of endangered and threatened species. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Corbin Farm Service | 444 F. Supp. 510 (D. Cal. 1978) |
As related to the BGEPA, the opinion distinguishes the degree of intent under the MBTA from that of the BGEPA. It also holds that both statutes were designed to apply to activities outside of traditional scope of hunting and poaching (in this case poisoning of birds). For further discussion on activities such as poisoning and electrocution prohibited under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case |