Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Savage v. Prator | 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006) | 2006 WL 136307 (La. 2006), |
Two Louisiana "game clubs" filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against parish commission and parish sheriff's office after being informed by the sheriff that an existing parish ordinance prohibiting cockfighting would be enforced. The clubs contended that the ordinance was violative of the police power reserved explicitly to the state (the state anti-cruelty provision is silent with regard to cockfighting). The First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo granted the clubs' request for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed the injunction and remanded the matter, finding that the parish ordinance prohibiting cockfighting did not violate general law or infringe upon State's police powers in violation of Constitution. |
Case | |
| FL - Importation - Chapter 5C-3. Importation of Animals | Fla. Admin. Code r. 5C-3.001 - 3.015 | Rule 5C-3.001 to 3.015, F.A.C. | This set of regulations constitutes the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services rules governing the importation of animals. | Administrative | |
| Causa Rol C-1533-2021-Chile- Do not publish | Causa Rol 1533-2021 |
Pet shared custody Igor and Bambu |
Case | ||
| 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 | ||
| Chile - Farm animals - Decreto 29 | Decreto 29 | This "Decreto" or executive order contains the welfare standards in industrial livestock production and commercialization. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 28, and 30, 2013. It defines industrial production and confinement. Other important aspects include the prohibition of improperly managing animals, and the requirement to minimize pain and suffering during surgical husbandry procedures such as castration, dehorning/disbudding, tail cropping, beak trimming, etc. | 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 | |
| Jackson v. Mateus | 70 P.3d 78 (Utah 2003) | Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant after she was bitten by the defendant’s cat and required medical attention as a result of the bite. Plaintiff found the defendant’s cat on her property and mistakenly started petting the cat, thinking that it was one of her own cats. As plaintiff was petting the cat, it bit her causing her injury. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against defendant for not restraining the cat. The court held in favor of the defendant because the court found that this incident was not foreseeable and because it was not foreseeable, the defendant did not owe a duty to restrain the animal under the common law, municipal law, or state law. | Case | ||
| State v. Lesoing-Dittoe | 693 N.W.2d 261 (Neb. 2005) | 269 Neb. 317 (2005) |
A married couple owned a pet dog that had a history of injuring other dogs. The married couple's dog injured a neighbors dog and, under a Nebraska Statute, was ordered to be destroyed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed the decision holding the penalty was unreasonable. |
Case | |
| AZ - Municipalities - Dog Regulations | A.R.S. § 9-240 | AZ ST § 9-240 | This Arizona statute allows common councils to regulate dogs running at large. | Statute | |
| Taylor v. Howren | 606 S.E.2d 74 (Ga.App., 2004) | 2004 WL 2283815, 270 Ga.App. 226 |
A family friend wanted to ride a horse and the horse owner told him it was rideable, despite knowing the horse was not fully trained yet. The family friend sued after being kicked in the eye, knocked unconscious and paralyzed by the horse. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for the horse owner on the basis that there was still a genuine issue of material fact as to the horse owner's immunity under the Equine Activities Act. |
Case |