Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - New Brunswick Statutes. Sheep Protection Act | R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-7, s. 1 - 6 | This set of New Brunswick laws comprises the Sheep Protection Act. Under the Act, where a sheep is killed or injured by a dog, the owner of the sheep may, within forty-eight hours, notify the Minister. The Minister then appoints an investigator who reports his or her findings back to the Minister. The Minister may then recover the expenses of the investigation from the owner of the dog, and may order the destruction of the dog. | Statute | |
| Moreland v. Marion County, Miss. | 2008 WL 4551443 (S.D.Miss.) |
Plaintiff brought action against Marion County (“County”) and several animal control officers (“Officers”) in their official capacities, after the Officers crossed county lines and confiscated several dogs that appeared severely dehydrated and malnourished, and euthanized at least one dog. On Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division held that since there was no evidence to indicate that Defendants’ actions were anything more than negligence not rising to the level of reckless disregard, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants should be dismissed. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, finding that the record did not support a finding of a pattern of inadequate training rising to the level of deliberate indifference to known or obvious consequence, and that the Officers’ actions could not be found to be a known or obvious result of the County’s training. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim with prejudice. |
Case | |
| In the Matter of: Akiko Kawahara, Respondent | 1980 WL 26513 (N.O.A.A.) | 2 O.R.W. 340 (1980) |
The principle issue in this case is whether the planned stopover of a few hours in Kennedy Airport in New York constitutes an "importation" within the meaning of the MMPA. The respondent in this case was employed by a business dealing in the international trade of animals and was attempting to bring four dolphins captured off the coast of Argentina back to Japan. The respondent only landed the dolphins in New York as a stopover on their way to Tokyo, but the court found that there was no requirement of knowledge or specific intent under the MMPA to constitute civil violations. |
Case |
| Brisson v. These Guys New York Deli Corp. | Not Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2023 WL 370990 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 20, 2023) | The Superior Court of Connecticut considers defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress arising from the death of their pet dog. Plaintiffs argue that previous Connecticut case law (Myers v. Hartford, 84 Conn. App. 395) left open the question of whether courts could consider a claim for emotional distress damages due to the loss of a pet. The incident giving rise to the litigation occurred in 2021, where a driver for the defendants' company ran over plaintiffs' pet dog while making a delivery. The complaint states that one of the plaintiffs directly witnessed the driver speed down the driveway and kill the dog by dragging. The court began its analysis by first observing a dog is chattel and is unambiguously defined as personal property in the state. Myers left often the issue of recovery of damages when a "bystander" owner witnesses a "fatal injury." The court then examined the factors articulated by the Connecticut Supreme Court for recovery of emotional damages by a bystander. In doing so, the court here determined that the relationship between a pet and its owner does not meet the "closely related" element articulated by the Supreme Court. The court stated: "Absent appellate clarification that this factor includes other relationships, including the one at issue here between a pet owner and pet, this court cannot conclude that such a relationship is sufficiently like the close human relationships required under Clohessy." The court noted that it agreed with defendants that allowing plaintiffs' claim would amount to creating a new cause of action without legislative or appellate authority. Defendants' motion to strike was granted. | Case | |
| Australia - Welfare - Animal Welfare Act 1992 | A1992-45 | An Act for the promotion of animal welfare, and for related purposes. | Statute | |
| International Convention for the Protection of Animals |
A proposed umbrella treaty to deal with all aspects of animal issues. Topics covered in the protocols include, transportation of animal, methods of taking wildlife, care of exhibited wildlife and protection from cruel treatment. |
Treaty | ||
| AL - Impound - Destruction of impounded dogs and cats | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-7A-8 | AL ST 3-7A-8 | This Alabama statute provides that all dogs, cats, and ferrets which have been impounded for lack of rabies immunization, after due notice has been given to the owner as provided in Section 3-7A-7, may be humanely destroyed and disposed of when not redeemed by the owner within seven days. The owner may redeem the animal before destruction by paying the associated costs of vaccination (if no proof of prior vaccination) and impoundment. | Statute |
| Animal Law Volume 15 Part 2 Index |
|
Policy | ||
| Lindauer v. LDB Drainlaying, Inc. | 555 P.2d 197 (Colo.App. 1976) | 38 Colo.App. 266 (1976) |
In this Colorado case, the owners of a thoroughbred racehorse brought a negligence action to recover for injuries to his horse against the corporation that installed underground pipe on property leased by plaintiffs. The lower court entered judgment on a verdict awarding damages to plaintiffs. On appeal, this court held that the evidence of negligence and contributory negligence was sufficient for jury where defendant physically left an unfinished project for two months where the horse was injured. Defendant still owed a duty of care that it would have owed as contractor. However, plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for care and feeding of injured horse.
|
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER REGULATION, 1967 | 1 of 1967 | The law, specific to the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar prohibits the slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks. Bulls and bullocks may be slaughtered only if they are over fifteen years of age or permanently unfit and unserviceable and on receipt of a certificate from a competent authority. Persons may not sell or transport beef products except for those beef products contained in sealed containers and imported into the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. | Statute |