Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedroni, Matías Andrés c/ Capello Marina Alejandra s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia | Poder Judicial de la Nación, Juzgado Civil 7, Fallo 23536/2021 | This case involves a divorced couple that shared two dogs, Burke and Roma. The divorced couple had an arrangement where they shared custody of the dogs. After a domestic violence accusation filed by Marina Alejandra Capello (the respondent) that resulted in a restraining order, Matías Andrés Pedroni (the petitioner) was no longer allowed to see the dogs. The petitioner filed an injunction asking the judge to grant visitation rights (provisional communication regime in Argentina) so he could see the dogs. The petitioner argued that the capricious decision not to let him see the dogs caused him pain, anguish, and concern because Roma and Burke were his family. The judge concluded that from a non-anthropocentric speciest view, Burke and Roma were non-human members of the family created by the parties and that the love for the dogs did not end with the divorce. On the contrary, it had transcended the relationship of the couple. Therefore, neither party could be forced to forget about their relationship with their dogs, severing the solid emotional bond based on years of living together. | Case | ||||||||
| Pennsylvania Statute Law 1920: Article 14: Criminal Law | 14 Pa. Stat. §§ 7700-7783 (1920) | Pennsylvania laws concerning the criminal punishment for cruelty to animals from 1921. The laws cover such topics as transportation of an animal to the powers of an agent from any anti-Cruelty society. | Statute | ||||||||
| PA - Exotic Pets - Subchapter N. Exotic Wildlife Possession | 58 PA ADC § 147.261 - 262 | 58 Pa. Code § 147.261 to .262 | This subchapter relates to the housing and care of exotic wildlife, and public protection from exotic wildlife held or transported by a person under the act or this part. | Administrative | |||||||
| Houseman v. Dare | 966 A.2d 24 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009) | 405 N.J.Super. 538 (2009) |
An engaged, live-in couple purchased a dog together and listed both of their names on the American Kennel Club registration. While speaking to his girlfriend about ending the relationship, the boyfriend promised her that she could keep the dog, but failed to fulfill that promise; the court required specific enforcement of that promise. In addition, the court found that dogs possess special subjective value similar to "heirlooms, family treasures, and works of art." |
Case | |||||||
| CA - Initiatives - Proposition 4 (trapping) | Proposition 4 (1998) | This state initiative measure was proposed in 1998 and prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur bearing (or non-game) with body gripping traps for recreation or commerce in fur. This includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps are not considered body-gripping traps. It passed with 57.5% of the vote. | Statute | ||||||||
| WI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W. S. A. 951.01 - 18; W.S.A. 944.18 | WI ST. 951.01 - 18; WI ST 944.18 | This section comprises the Wisconsin anti-cruelty section. Under the section, "animal" includes every living warm-blooded creature (except a human being), reptile, or amphibian. The section prohibits "mistreating animals," which is defined as treating any animal, whether belonging to the person or another, in a cruel manner. This section does not prohibit bona fide experiments carried on for scientific research or normal and accepted veterinary practices. This section also prohibits the instigation of dogfights, and has a unique provisions that prohibits the shooting of caged or staked animals. | Statute | |||||||
| AWA - Birds - Subpart G. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds | 9 C.F.R. § 3.150 - 3.168 | These AWA regulations comprise Subpart G for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds. | Administrative | ||||||||
| Putnam County Humane Society v. Marjorie Duso d/b/a/ Oakwood Kennels, Putnam County Florida |
The Putnam County (Florida) Humane Society brought an action seeking permanent custody of 41 dogs from Marjorie Duso, the operator of a kennel. The PCHS is a not-for-profit corporation that is devoted to the prevention of cruelty to animals pursuant to Florida law. Under that authority, the PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The Putnam County Court granted the PCHS custody of the dogs (except for Ms. Duso’s personal pet dog, which the PCHS was given the right to check on at least once a month). Further, the court enjoined Ms. Duso from owning, possessing, or breeding dogs except those kept as personal pets. |
Pleading | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 6 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Cat Champion Corp. v. Jean Marie Primrose | 149 P.3d 1276 (Or. Ct. App. 2006) | 210 Or.App. 206 (2006) |
A woman had 11 cats which were in a state of neglect and were taken away from her and put with a cat protection agency. Criminal charges were dropped against the woman when it was found she was mentally ill and incapable of taking care of herself or her cats. The court found it could grant the cat protection agency ownership over the cats so they could be put up for adoption, even though the woman had not been criminal charged, and had not forfeited her cats. |
Case |