Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Dicke | 258 Or. App. 678, 310 P.3d 1170 review allowed, 354 Or. 597, 318 P.3d 749 (2013) | 2013 WL 5352271, 258 Or. App. 678, review allowed, 354 Or. 597, 318 P.3d 749 (2013) |
This case is the companion case to State v. Fessenden,258 Or. App. 639, 310 P.3d 1163 (2013) review allowed, 354 Or. 597, 318 P.3d 749 (2013) and aff'd, 355 Or. 759, 333 P.3d 278 (2014). Defendant was convicted of first-degree animal abuse, ORS 167.320, in association with having allowed her horse to become so severely emaciated that it was at imminent risk of dying. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained through a warrantless search of the horse. In affirming the lower court, this court found that the warrant exception that allows officers to assist seriously injured people extends to animals under certain circumstances. Citing Fessenden, this court found that a warrantless seizure will be valid when officers have "objectively reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that the search or seizure is necessary to render immediate aid or assistance to animals that have suffered, or which are imminently threatened with suffering . . ." |
Case |
| Decreto Ley 21080, 1975 | Decreto Ley 21080, 1975 | This Decreto Ley approves and adopts the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) into the Peruvian legal system. The main purpose of this international agreement is to ensure that international trade of specimens of wildlife does not pose a threat to their survival. | Statute | |
| Giardiello v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C. | 261 F. Supp. 3d 86 (D. Mass. 2017) | 2017 WL 3610478 (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2017) | This case dealt with a condo owner and his son who lived in a condo and relied on a service dog for treatment of PTSD. The Plaintiffs filed suit against the condo trust, Board of Trustees, Board members, and others, alleging violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by not allowing the Plaintiffs to keep the dog in their condo unit. The father attempted to communicate with the Trustees about a reasonable accommodation for the service dog, but was met with silence from the Trustees. After the dog had already moved into the condo, the Board sent correspondence stating that fines would be assessed if the dog was not removed after a certain date. After complications with securing the requisite medical info, the dog was ultimately allowed to say, but fines had accrued. The Court held that 1) plaintiffs stated claim that defendants violated FHA; 2) owner was an aggrieved person under the FHA, and thus owner had standing to bring claim; 3) district court would decline to dismiss claim on exhaustion grounds; and 4) under Massachusetts law, claims against attorney and law firm were barred by the litigation privilege. Thus, the court the Court denied the Board and Trust's motion to dismiss and granted Attorney Gaines and the Law Firm's motion to dismiss. | Case |
| TX - Endangered Species - Chapter 68. Endangered Species | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 68.001 - 021 | TX PARKS & WILD § 68.001 - 021 | Texas defines endangered species as those listed on the federal ESA List as well as those designated in the state. No person may capture, trap, take, or kill, or attempt to capture, trap, take, or kill, endangered fish or wildlife nor may he or she possess, sell, distribute, or offer or advertise for sale those species (unless allowed as described in the subchapter). Notably, this chapter excepts from its provisions coyotes, cougars, bobcats, prairie dogs, and red foxes (with no mention as to what occurs in the event they become endangered). Violation of the provisions results in a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor for the first offense, a Class B misdemeanor for the second offense, and a Class A misdemeanor for subsequent offenses. | Statute |
| NV - Veterinary - Chapter 638. Veterinarians. General Provisions. | N. R. S. 638.001 - 638.200 | NV ST 638.001 - 638.200 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| Womack v. Von Rardon | 135 P.3d 542 (Wash. 2006) |
In this Washington case, a cat owner sued a minor and his parents after the minor set her cat on fire. While this Court found that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment with respect to Ms. Womack's private nuisance, tort outrage, and statutory waste claims, it held that the lower court incorrectly calculated the measure of damages. Noting that the Division 2 Appellate Court left open the question of emotional distress damages where a pet has been maliciously injured in Pickford v. Masion , 124 Wash.App. 257, 262-63, 98 P.3d 1232 (2004), this Court held that the general allegations include sufficient facts to find both malicious conduct toward Ms. Womack's pet and her resulting emotional distress. Thus, "[f]or the first time in Washington, we hold malicious injury to a pet can support a claim for, and be considered a factor in measuring a person's emotional distress damages." |
Case | |
| Hastings v. Sauve | 94 A.D.3d 1171 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012) | 2012 WL 1129275 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012); 941 N.Y.S.2d 774 (2012) | Plaintiff motorist was injured after hitting a cow that had wandered onto the highway, and sued owner for negligently failing to confine cow. The Supreme Court held that injury claims could only proceed under strict liability theory based on owner's knowledge of animal's vicious propensities. There was no evidence that cow had a vicious propensity, or that owner knew of propensity, thus, owner was not liable. This order was Reversed by Hastings v. Sauve , 2013 WL 1829834 (N.Y., 2013). | Case |
| R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others) v Attorney General and another | [2007] UKHL 52 | An appeal was brought against a decision that the Hunting Act 2004 was not inconsistent with the EC Treaty, or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the appellants argued that the Act was incompatible with the right to a private and family life; and the right of freedom of assembly and association (Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Act); along with Articles 1 and 14 of the Act (the right to peaceful enjoyment of property rights, and prohibition on discrimination). The appeal was rejected by the House of Lords. Findings included that Articles 8 and 11 were not engaged, and that even if they were, the hunting ban was proportionate to the end it sought to achieve and necessary in a democratic society. | Case | |
| RI - Livestock, damage done by - Chapter 14. Damage by Animals | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-14-1 to 20 | RI ST § 4-14-1 to 20 | This chapter deals with responsibilities and liability for livestock at large. No horse, bull, boar, ram, or goat shall be permitted to run at large and if the owner or keeper of these, for any reason suffers any animals to do so he or she shall upon conviction be fined not in excess of one hundred dollars ($100) and be liable in addition for all damages done by the animal while so at large. The chapter also specifies procedures for impounding animals found at large. | Statute |
| NC - Hunting - Chapter 113. Conservation and Development. | N.C.G.S.A. § 113-295 | NC ST § 113-295 | This law reflects North Carolina's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, it is unlawful for a person to interfere intentionally with the lawful taking of wildlife resources or to drive, harass, or intentionally disturb any wildlife resources for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife resources. Incidental interference is excluded from the statute. Violation of this subsection is a Class 2 misdemeanor for a first conviction and a Class 1 misdemeanor for a second or subsequent conviction. | Statute |