Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhode Island Public Laws 1857-1872: Chapter 912: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | 1872 R.I. Pub. Laws 912 | A collection of the laws concerning cruelty to animals from Rhode Island for the years 1857-1872. The act covers such topics as bird fighting, cruelty to animals, enforcement of the act, and procedural issues concerning the act. | Statute | |
| CO - Denver - Breed - Sec. 8-55. Pit bulls prohibited. | Sec. 8.55 |
This Denver, Colorado ordinance provides that it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull. A pit bull is defined broadly as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds." [emphasis added] A person who applied for and received a special pit bull license before August 7, 1989 (date of the publication of the ordinance) and who maintains the pit bull in compliance with the requirements of the ordinance may keep a pit bull. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Colucci v. Colucci | 234 A.3d 1226 (Me. 2020) | 2020 ME 75 , 2020 WL 2764560 | This Maine case is an appeal of a divorce proceeding where one party argues the court erred in awarding the parties' dogs to another. In 2017, Suan Colucci filed a complaint for divorce against her husband, Stephen Colucci. In 2019, the court entered a judgment granting the divorce and awarded both dogs “set aside to [Susan] as her exclusive property.” On appeal by Stephen, this court found that undisputed evidence established that "Louise" the dog was acquired five years before marriage, and thus, was nonmarital property. Because no evidence was presented to which of the parties actually acquired Louise in 2010, the judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings to determine ownership of Louise. | Case |
| CA - Dog Park - § 831.7.5. Liability of public entity owning or operating a dog park; actions of a dog in the dog park | West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 831.7.5 | This law in the Government Code states that a public entity that owns or operates a dog park shall not be held liable for injury or death of a person or pet resulting solely from the actions of a dog in the dog park. | Statute | |
| CO - Initiatives - Amendment 13 (livestock operations) | Amendment 13. Uniform Regulation of Livestock Operations | This 1998 Colorado ballot measure sought to create uniform livestock regulations based on the potential environmental impact that the operation causes (rather than the character of the farm). It specifically sought to target the non-point pollution caused by large-scale operation run-off. The measure further added a definition for "livestock." It failed at the polls with only 38.7% of the vote. | Statute | |
| Fabrikant v. French | 722 F.Supp.2d 249 (N.D.N.Y., 2010) | 2010 WL 2774043 (N.D.N.Y.) |
Plaintiff Jody Fabrikant, who had recently placed an advertisement for the adoption of puppies, was in possession of fifteen animals, including fourteen dogs and one cat. Reacting to several complaints regarding the animals’ treatment, defendants, the Ulster County SPCA and employees, executed a search warrant resulting in Fabrikant's arrest and seizure of thirteen of her fifteen animals. Plaintiff subsequently asserted that her federal constitutional rights were violated during the course of her criminal prosecution for animal cruelty. With respect to all four federal claims, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment since the existence of probable cause (e.g., video recordings and photographs of the condition of the plaintiff’s home) insulated the defendants from liability for their decisions to seize Plaintiff's animals. |
Case |
| WI - Endangered Species - 29.604. Endangered and threatened species protected | W. S. A. 29.604, 29.977, 29.983 | WI ST 29.604, 29.977, 29.983 | This Wisconsin statute embodies the legislative view that certain wild animals and wild plants are endangered or threatened and are entitled to preservation and protection as a matter of general state concern. Violation of the Act with regard to protected animal species may result in a $500-2,000 for a taking, and a $2,000-5,000 fine with 9 months imprisonment for an intentional taking. Both incur the suspension of hunting license privileges. Incidental takings may be allowed through permit if steps are taken to establish and file a "conservation plan." | Statute |
| Kokechik Fishermen's Association v. Secretary of Commerce | 839 F.2d 795 (1988) | 268 U.S. App. D.C. 116 (1988) |
The Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation authorizing appellant salmon federation to take a fixed number of porpoise in connection to commercial fishing for salmon. Appellee commercial fishermen opposed the permit. The federation sought review of a judgment which preliminarily enjoined the Secretary from issuing the permit. |
Case |
| Hoaward Stein, Susan Stein, Steven Glasser, Gail Glasser, Joel Hodes, Netiva Caftori, Eric Cooper, Norman Cooper v. Dr. Todd Pri | This Illinois action brings forth the claims of four sets of plaintiffs for various claims against defendant-veterinarian. While the specific facts concerning the alleged wrongdoings are not provided, it appears that defendant was a veterinarian who operated a medical center and animal boarding facility. Plaintiffs all raise four counts against defendant (breach of contract, negligence, malpractice, and bailment) for the deaths of their dogs. From each set of facts, the various plaintiffs allege that their dogs were in good health prior to boarding their dogs at defendant’s facility, and each dog subsequently died in its cage. In the negligence and malpractice counts, the plaintiffs note that defendants failed to provide an adequate environment to ensure the dogs’ safety, failed to provide adequate ventilation, failed to sterilize the boarding area after sick animals had been housed there, and then failed to properly preserve the companion animals to ensure accurate necropsies, among other things. All plaintiffs sought both actual damages for the loss of their companions as well as damages related to their “reasonable sentimental value.” | Pleading | ||
| Friesen v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | 2008 CarswellSask 438 | 2008 SKQB 150 |
An animal protection officer received a complaint that two dogs were not receiving proper care. Officer Barry Thiessen, an animal protection officer employed by the S.S.P.C.A., observed that dogs appeared malnourished and in distress from lack of food and water. Upon returning the next day, Thiessen determined that the conditions were unchanged and the dogs were then seized pursuant to the warrant. The appellant dog owner brought an application for declaration that the officer seized dogs in contravention of an owner's rights under s. 8 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in excess of officer's authority. In dismissing his application, the court found that the warrant was lawfully obtained pursuant to provisions of the Animal Protection Act, 1999. The officer had a legitimate reason to come to property of the dog owner to investigate after he received a complaint, and it was there that he saw the dogs’ condition in "plain view" according to the court. |
Case |