Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson v. Wander | 592 So. 2d. 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) |
Petitioner pet owner alleged that respondent veterinarian took her dog to be spayed, and left the animal on heating pads, which resulted in serious burns, so petitioner filed a claim for damages on the basis of gross negligence, damage to property, and emotional distress. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on the claims for punitive damages and emotional distress and, on a subsequent motion, transferred the case to the county court as a claim for less than the circuit court jurisdictional amount. The appellate court held that there remained a jury question on the issues of gross negligence and physical and mental pain and suffering as claimed by petitioner. |
Case | ||
| People v. Meadows | 54 Misc. 3d 697, 46 N.Y.S.3d 843 (N.Y. City Ct. 2016), rev'd, No. 17-AP-002, 2017 WL 4367065 (N.Y. Co. Ct. Aug. 3, 2017) | 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 26405, 2016 WL 7165826 |
Defendant Amber Meadows allegedly neglected to provide dogs Athena, Buddy, and Meeko, with air, food, and water, and confined them in a bedroom where feces was found on the floor and furniture. Meadows was prosecuted for three counts of the unclassified misdemeanor of failure to provide proper food and drink to an impounded animal in violation of § 356 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML). Meadows moved to dismiss the Information as facially insufficient and stated that the Supporting Deposition indicated that the dogs were “in good condition.” The People of the State of New York argued that the allegations in both the Information and Deposition, taken together, provide a sufficient basis to establish the elements of the crime. The Canandaigua City Court, Ontario County, held that: (1) “impounded” as stated in § 356 of the Agriculture and Markets Law does not apply to individual persons, and (2) even if the statute applied to individual persons, the allegations in the Information were not facially sufficient. The court reasoned § 356 does not apply to individual persons, but instead applies only to “pounds” operated by not-for-profit organizations, or kennels where animals are confined for hire. The court also stated that even if § 356 were to apply to individuals, under no construction of the facts here could the charge be sustained, as it appeared that the animals were properly cared for in the Defendant's apartment up to the point where she was forcibly detained. The conditions observed by law enforcement authorities on the date alleged in the Information were apparently several days after Meadow's incarceration and after which she was unsuccessful in securing assistance for the dogs while incarcerated. The Information was dismissed with prejudice, and the People's application for leave to file an amended or superseding Information was denied. |
Case | |
| Chavez v. Aber | 122 F. Supp. 3d 581 (W.D. Tex. 2015) | 2015 WL 4724807 (W.D. Tex., 2015) | Plaintiffs sought damages stemming from Defendants' refusal to accommodate Plaintiffs’ minor son's mental health disabilities by allowing Plaintiffs to keep a mixed-breed pit bull as an emotional support animal in their rented duplex. Plaintiffs asserted (1) housing discrimination under the Federal Housing Act (“FHA”), (2) unlawful retaliation under the FHA, (3) discrimination under the Texas Fair Housing Act (“TFHA”), and (4) unlawful retaliation under § 92.331 of the Texas Property Code. Defendants filed the Motion, seeking dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court found Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded all claims and denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. | Case | |
| MN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | M. S. A. 35.67 - 71; 97A.321, 97B.001 - 621; 135A.191; 325F.79-792; 346.01-58; 347.01-56; 365.10; 366.01; § 609.226 | MN ST 35.67 - 71; 97A.321, 97B.001 - 621; 135A.191; 325F.79-792; 346.01-58; 347.01-56; 365.10; 366.01 | These statutes comprise Minnesota's relevant dog laws. Among the provisions include several laws related to natural resources protection and hunting with dogs, the sale of dogs, and laws related to damage done by dogs. | Statute | |
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart I - Interagency Cooperation | 50 C.F.R. § 17.94 | This section of the ESA regulations provides that all federal agencies must insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the constituent elements essential to the conservation of the listed species within these defined Critical Habitats. It also gives greater definition of what constitutes "Critical Habitat" and how agencies and interested parties can locate the boundaries of specified critical habitats. | Administrative | ||
| HI - Trusts for domestic or pet animals. - [§ 554D-408]. Trust for care of animal | H R S § 554D-408 | HI ST § 554D-408 | This statute represents Hawaii's pet trust law (note: this new section replaces former H.R.S. § 560:7-501). A trust for the care of one or more designated domestic or pet animals shall be valid. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. A governing instrument shall be liberally construed to bring the transfer within this section, to presume against the precatory or honorary nature of its disposition, and to carry out the general intent of the transferor. Extrinsic evidence shall be admissible in determining the transferor's intent. | Statute | |
| Hairston v. Burger King Corp. | 764 So.2d 176 (La.App. 2 Cir.,2000) |
Louisiana appeals court affirmed trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to adequately link her stomach ailment with a burger purchased from Burger King and thus could not sustain an action that sought recovery of alleged damages suffering due to food poisoning. |
Case | ||
| In re: JULIAN J. TONEY AND ANITA L. TONEY | 54 Agric. Dec. 923 (1995) | 923, 1995 WL 785952 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $200,000.00 (largest civil penalty ever imposed under Act) was appropriate, where degree of willfulness and flagrancy of respondents' violations was astonishing, and even after hearing was pending on initial complaint, respondents continued to violate Act. | Case | |
| IN - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 312 IAC 9-10-9 Wild animal rehabilitation permit | 312 IAC 9-10-9 | 312 IN ADC 9-10-9, 9.5 | This Indiana regulation sets for the requirements to obtain a permit to possess wild animals for rehabilitation. | Administrative | |
| Dead baby night monkey lies in a tray meant for collecting feces from a cage | Slideshow Images |