Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Capers' Estate | 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 121 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) | 15 Fiduc.Rep. 150, 1963 WL 6573 (Pa.Orph.) (1964) |
In this Pennsylvania case, the testatrix directed in her will that her Irish setter dogs to be destroyed in a humane manner. The executors were unsure of what action to take and sought declaratory relief. In attempting to construe the testatrix's intent, the court found that she "evidently feared that either they would grieve for her or that no one would afford them the same affection and kindness that they received during her life." The court found that the intent of testatrix would be carried out if her two favored Irish setters were placed in an environment where they are given the same care and attention that she she gave them during her life. The final question the court grappled with was whether it was against public policy to hold valid a clause in a will directing the summary destruction of certain of decedent's property after her death. The court held that the clause was void as not being within the purview of the Wills Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and being against the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. |
Case |
| Missouri Farmers Ass'n v. Kempker | 726 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.,1987) |
Missouri Farmers Association sued a dairy farmer on account and notes. The farmer counterclaimed, alleging that Association had supplied defective feed. The Supreme Court held that farmer's recovery for diminution in cows' value did not preclude recovery for loss of milk and calf production. However, the farmer failed to sufficiently link the feed to his damages, so his evidence of lost profits was speculative, which prevented recovery. |
Case | |
| Metal dirty cage with a night monkey in it. | Slideshow Images | |||
| Stephens v. City of Spokane | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 3146390 (E.D.Wash.) | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 3146390 |
Before the court here is defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Plaintiffs claim is based on Spokane's "barking dog" ordinance" for which they were each issued an infraction by animal control officers. Plaintiffs contend the ordinance is void for vagueness. The court disagreed, finding that the ordinance has incorporated the reasonableness standard and is presumptively constitutional. In the ordinance, the citizen of average intellect need not guess at the prohibition of allowing an animal to unreasonably disturb persons by “habitually barking, howling, yelping, whining, or making other oral noises.” |
Case |
| NE - Hunting, Internet - § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573. Hunt through the Internet | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573 | NE ST § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573 | These statute prohibits internet hunting and the hosting of internet hunting within the state of Nebraska. Any person who violates subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 37-572 is guilty of a Class II misdemeanor. | Statute |
| LA - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 2. Miscellaneous Crimes and Offenses. | LA R.S. 14:228, 228.1 | This law is Louisiana's interference with animal research facilities or animal management facilities law. It is unlawful for any person to: intentionally release, steal, or otherwise cause the loss of any animal from an animal research facility or an animal management facility. to damage, vandalize, or steal any property from or on an animal research facility or an animal management facility to obtain access by false pretenses for the purpose of performing prohibited acts; to break and enter with the intent to destroy, alter, duplicate, or obtain unauthorized possession of records, data, materials, equipment, or animals; to enter or remain on an animal research facility or an animal management facility with the intent to commit prohibited acts; or to knowingly obtain or exert unauthorized control, by theft or deception, over records, data, material, equipment, or animals. A person violating this law shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than one year, or both. A companion section (228.1) prohibits the unauthorized release of any animal, bird, or aquatic species which has been lawfully confined for agriculture, science, research, commerce, public propagation, protective custody, or education. | Statute | |
| DE - Endangered Species - CHAPTER 6. ENDANGERED SPECIES | 7 Del.C. § 601 - 605 | DE ST TI 7 § 601 - 605 | Delaware prohibits the importation, transportation, possession, or sale of any part, hide or an endangered species of fish or wildlife. Delaware also prohibits the intent to import, transport, or sell any part or hide of an endangered species. The only lawful way to take an endangered species is by a license or permit from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and violation of this statute is a class A environmental misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Bates v. Constable | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) |
A son obtained a dog from defendant for his father to have as a pet. The dog bit the father and the father sued defendant for failing to warn him of the dog's vicious propensities. The Court held the defendant did not owe the second transferee of the dog a duty to warn and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. |
Case |
| Brown v. Crocker | 139 So.2d 779 (La. 1962) |
This action in tort was instituted by plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of his minor son, against the defendant to recover the value of a quarter-horse mare and a stillborn colt, and for damages occasioned by shock and mental anguish suffered by the son, as well as for services of a veterinarian and medicines used in treatment of the mare following her wounding by a shotgun blast intentionally inflicted by the defendant. The Court of Appeal in upheld an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish experienced by the child who could not stop crying about the loss of his horse and the colt that never was. As the court stated, "Under the facts and circumstances, an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish suffered by the minor would, in our opinion, do justice between the parties." |
Case | |
| People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. | 376 So. 3d 178, writ granted sub nom. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/23) | 2022-0976 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/23); 2023 WL 6119352 (La.App. 1 Cir., 2023) | Plaintiff-appellee, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), began this case by issuing eight public records requests to defendant-appellant Louisiana State University (LSU). PETA made these records seeking veterinary care and disposition records for birds used in LSU’s laboratories. For the first seven of these requests, LSU did not produce the records, so PETA filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Public Records Law. LSU denied PETA’s allegations and did not produce the records, so PETA made an eighth records request, which LSU responded to with an assertion that the requested records were exempt from disclosure. After a hearing, the trial court issued an oral ruling in favor of PETA and granted some of the records that PETA requested. LSU appealed. On appeal, the court considered whether the records sought by PETA were covered under the Public Records Law. The court first found that LSU qualifies as a research facility under the Animal Welfare Act, and needs to comply with federal law and maintain and produce records relating to research animals, so long as the records being sought would not be unduly burdensome to produce. The court held that the portions of the judgment ordering LSU to produce veterinary daily observation reports, veterinary daily health check records, and other veterinary records were affirmed. However, some of the information sought, including private communications between LSU employees, trapping records, and some videographic records, were considered unduly burdensome to compel LSU to produce. The court also amended a portion of one of the requests to make it more specific and narrow the documentation that LSU would need to produce. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part. | Case |