Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser | (2008) 249 ALR 445 | (2008) 169 FCR 583; [2008] FCAFC 156 |
The trial judge held that the respondent's placing of a ham mixture in the feed of sheep prior to live export was covered by the defence of dominant purpose for environmental protection under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). On appeal, the court held that the respondent's actions were not an attempt at environmental protection but rather sought to prevent what he believed would be cruelty to those animals on board the ship during live export and upon arrival. The case was referred back to the Federal Court for assessment of damages. |
Case | |
| Friends of Animals v. Clay | 811 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 305359 (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2016) | Friends of Animals (“FOA”) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees William Clay in his official capacity as a Deputy Administrator in the Department of Agriculture-APHIS and the FWS. FOA challenged FWS's issuance of a “depredation permit” to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey authorizing the emergency “take” of migratory birds that threaten to interfere with aircraft at JFK Airport. FOA argues that FWS's own regulations unambiguously prohibit it from issuing such a permit and that the permit should therefore be set aside as the product of agency action that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The District Court granted summary judgment for defendant FWS. On appeal, this court affirmed that ruling. FOA pointed out that the "emergency take" regulation at 50 C.F.R. § 21.41 does not authorize FWS to issue a permit that allows the emergency take of a migratory bird irrespective of its species, but instead requires a "species-specific" inquiry. However, this court disagreed, finding that "§ 21.41 does not place Port Authority officials in the untenable position of having to choose between violating federal law and deliberately ignoring serious threats to human safety." Further, the court found the specific requirements in § 21.41 concern only applicants seeking a permit and not the FWS itself. In this situation, the court found the 2014 permit's emergency-take provision satisfied § 21.41. The District Court's order was affirmed. | Case | |
| Parker v. Parker | 195 P.3d 428 (Or.App.,2008) | 223 Or.App. 137 (2008); 2008 WL 4570581 |
Plaintiff and his 12 year-old quarter horse were visiting defendant at defendant's property when defendant's dog rushed at the horse causing it to run into a steel fence. The horse suffered severe head trauma, which necessitated its later euthanization. Plaintiff filed suit for damages asserting liability under common law negligence and O.R.S. 609.140(1) - the statute that allows an owner to recover double damages where livestock is injured due to being injured, chased, or killed by another person's dog. The appellate court agreed with plaintiff that O.R.S. 609.140(1) creates an statutory cause of action independent from negligence. Further, the court found that plaintiff fell within the class of persons the statute aims to protect because the legislature did not intend to limit the statute's application to property owned by the livestock's owner. |
Case | |
| AK - Exotic Animals - Title 5. Fish and Game. Article 3. Permits. | 5 AAC 92.029 - 035 | 5 AK ADC 92.029 to .035 | These Alaska regulation provides that, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person may possess, import, release, export, or assist in those actions, live game, unless the person holds a possession permit issued by the department. The regulations also list species that may be possessed without a permit, but may not be released into the wild which includes dogs,cats, chimpanzees, white rats, and many others. The department may not issue a permit for the capture, possession, import, or export of any game animal, including a hybrid species of a game animal, for use as a pet. Any of the listed species of bird, mammal, or reptile that is endangered may not be held in private ownership without a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. | Administrative | |
| KS - Endangered Species - Chapter 32. Wildlife, Parks and Recreation | K. S. A. § 32-957 - 963 | KS ST § 32-957 - 963 | These Kansas statutes set forth the state's endangered and threatened species provisions. Included are the related definitions and the rules for listing species. A permit is required for any form of possession or taking of a listed species. | Statute | |
| CO - Humane Slaughter - Article 33. Custom Processing of Meat Animals. | C. R. S. A. § 35-33-101 to 407 | CO ST § 35-33-101 to 407 | This Colorado section includes both the meat processing laws and the humane slaughter provisions. It covers livestock, which are defined as cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules, goats, and any other animal which may be used in and for the preparation of meat or meat products. No processor shall shackle, hoist, or otherwise bring livestock into position for slaughter or shall slaughter livestock except by humane methods as defined by regulation; the use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax is not permitted. Additionally, poultry shall be slaughtered in accordance with "good commercial practices" and in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding. Any person who violates any provision is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $750 per violation for each day of violation and commits a class 2 misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Kimball v. Betts | 99 Wash. 348 (1918) | 169 P. 849 (1918) |
In an action for conversion of household goods kept for use and not for sale, it is not necessary to prove that such goods have no market value as a condition precedent to the right to introduce proof of actual value. If they have no market value, the measure of damages for their conversion is their value to the owner based on the actual money lost. |
Case | |
| Puppies 'N Love, v. City of Phoenix | 116 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Ariz. 2015) | 2015 WL 4532586 (D. Ariz., 2015) | Defendant City of Phoenix passed an ordinance that prohibited pet stores from selling dogs or cats obtained from persons or companies that bred animals; pet stores could only sell animals obtained from animal shelters or rescue organizations. Puppies 'N Love operated a pet store in Phoenix that sold purebred dogs obtained from out-of-state breeders. Puppies 'N Love and its owners sued the City, claiming primarily that the Ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by closing the Phoenix market to out-of-state breeders and giving an economic advantage to local breeders. All parties, including Intervenor Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Intervenor’s and the city’s motions, but denied Puppies ‘N Love’s motion, thereby upholding the ordinance. | Case | |
| Thurber v. Apmann | 91 A.D.3d 1257 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012) | 2012 WL 225395 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.); 936 N.Y.S.2d 789 |
In 2007, the plaintiff and defendant were walking their respective dogs when one of defendant's two dogs, a retired K-9 dog, attacked the plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages she received as a result. While each dog did received "handler protection" training (where a K-9 dog is trained to react to an aggressive attack on defendant while on duty), that situation had never arisen because the dogs acted in passive roles as explosive detection dogs. Plaintiff countered that the severity of the attack coupled with the dogs' breed and formal police training should have put defendant on notice of the dogs' vicious propensities. In affirming the summary judgment, this court found that the formal police training was not evidence of viciousness and there was no support to plaintiff's assertion that defendant kept the dogs as "guard dogs." |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter | 44 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (D. Idaho 2014) | 2014 WL 4388158 (D. Idaho, 2014) | In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss. | Case |