Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MICHAEL SEAGRAVE, plaintiff v. MICHAEL ATZET, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, defendant | This California complaint arose from the shooting of plaintiff's golden retriever dog. Plaintiff's dog was secure in the backyard which was bordered by a fence. According to the complaint, defendant intentionally used a high-powered pellet rifle and shot the dog by positioning the rifle over or through the fence. This injury resulted in plaintiff's dog's death. The complaint raised three causes of action: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) conversion; and (3) violation of California Civil Code of Procedure Section 3340 (related to damages to animals). | Pleading | ||
| Argentina - Wildlife - Decreto 666, 1997 | Decreto 666, 1997 | This “Decreto” regulates Law No. 22,421, relating to the law for conservation of wildlife, emphasizing the management powers of the national enforcement authority, through the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. This regulatory decree also regulates the practice of hunting and creates the National Registry of Hunters. The National Registry of Hunters deals in: sport hunting, commercial hunting, hunting with scientific or educational purposes, and hunting for control of harmful species. Other topics that Decreto 666 regulates include: sanctuaries, breeding stations for wildlife, import, export and interprovincial trade of wildlife and byproducts. In the latter, it is mandatory to register in the corresponding registry of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and to keep books that record the movement of such animals and products. It is also mandatory to supply the reports that are required and to facilitate access at all times of the authorized officials for inspection and control. The law created the Advisory Commission for Wildlife and its Habitat to propose solutions to problems relating to the sustainable use of wild fauna. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is the authority of enforcement with national scope. Its responsibility is to classify the wild fauna species, to set the corresponding tariffs for the registry of sport hunting, among other responsibilities. The National Service of health and agro-food quality (SENASA) is in charge of the sanitary control of wildlife subject to national and international trade. | Statute | |
| AU - Cruelty - South Australia Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) | Animal Welfare Act 1985 |
The South Australian Animal Welfare Act’s primary purpose is for the promotion of animal welfare. The Act is enforced by RSPCA SA and is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in South Australia. The Act generally governs domestic privately owned animals (pets). |
Statute | |
| GA - Avondale Estates - Chapter 1: General Provisions & Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl | Code of Ordinances, City of Avondale Estates, Georgia §§ 1-8,4-1, 4-5, 4-6, 4-14, 4-15 |
In Avondale Estates, Georgia, animal fighting is not only prohibited by ordinance, but an animal trained for fighting is also considered a public nuisance, and an abused and dangerous animal. This ordinance provides provisions for each of the respective categories, as well as penalties for the violations. Notably, the city will not respond to a citizen's compliant about a violation of this chapter if the citizen chooses to remain anonymous. |
Local Ordinance | |
| United States of America v. James and Thomas Allemand | 34 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 1994) |
The jury convicted the Allemands of conspiring to export illegally taken wildlife and to file false records concerning wildlife intended for export. The court held that any error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that it could convict for conspriacy to make and submit false records concerning wildlife export only if conspirators intended to violate the law it was amended in 1988 was harmless where almost all the evidence adduced at trial related to acts from a time after the amendment was effective. |
Case | |
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 05, 1972 | Ley 05 de 1972 | This statute creates and regulates the creation of the Boards for Animal Defense. These boards, once legally constituted, become legal persons, with their main goal to raise awareness and educate the community about respect towards animals and animal protection through educational programs. Ley 5, 1972, establishes the creation of these boards as mandatory in all the municipalities in the country, as well as fines and arrests for those who are found responsible for committing cruel acts towards animals. At the same time, it establishes that the police have a duty to assist the Animal Defense Boards in the fulfillment of their goals. These boards are integrated by the Mayor or his/her delegate; the Parish Priest or his slender; the Municipal Representative or his/her delegate; a representative of the Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock of the respective Department; and a delegate chosen by the directives of the local schools. With the creation of these boards, the law seeks to promote educational campaigns that “tend to awaken the spirit of love towards animals that are useful to humans and to avoid cruel acts and unjustified mistreatment and abandonment of such animals." | Statute | |
| Clark v. Cardinal Animal Care | This is a complaint for veterinary malpractice. The cat had been checked in for a routine flea treatment. The cat ended up with a severe problem, which the veterinarian lied to the owner about. The veterinarian performed an unauthorized surgery on the cat. The cat died. | Pleading | ||
| McQuaker v. Goddard | [1940] 1 KB 687 |
A camel is not to be regarded as a wild animal by the common law as a camel 'is, in all countries, a domestic animal, an animal that has become trained to the uses of man, and a fortiori accustomed to association with man.' Whether an animal is to be regarded as wild or domestic is a question of law, and is to be judged according to the genus or class of which it belongs, not the characteristics of the individual animal. |
Case | |
| Barber v. Pennsylvania Dept. Agriculture | Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1816760 (W.D.Pa.) |
The plaintiffs in this Pennsylvania case are owners and operators of a non-profit animal rescue and kennel that houses housing about 500 dogs doing business in and throughout Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The current dispute stems from a series of inspections of the kennels that occurred throughout the 2007 calendar year. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and that the PSPCA and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement (the inspection branch of the Dept. of Agriculture) failed to take reasonable steps to protect them from the conspiratorial activity in violation of 42 U.S .C. § 1986. Plaintiffs also state that the PSPCA and the Bureau violated various of their constitutional rights in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs also seek to hold the Defendants liable for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S .C. § 1983. Finally, other counts allege that Defendant Delenick sexually harassed Plaintiff Rachel Lappe-Biler in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; that plaintiff Pauline Gladys Bryner-Lappe was assaulted and battered in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment; and that the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. |
Case | |
| VA - Hunting - § 29.1-530.3. Remote hunting prohibited; penalty | VA Code Ann. § 29.1-530.3 | VA ST § 29.1-530.3 | Under this Virginia statute, it is unlawful to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility that allows others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wild bird being hunted or shot is located in the Commonwealth. A violation is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. | Statute |