Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser | (1991) 1 VR 51 | (1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-027 |
Animal Liberation were injuncted from publishing words claiming animal cruelty in a circus or demonstrating against that circus. They were also found guilty of nuisance resulting from their demonstration outside that circus. On appeal, the injunctions were overturned although the finding of nuisance was upheld. |
Case |
| Beckett v. Warren | 921 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio, 2010) | 2010 WL 46003 (Ohio), 124 Ohio St.3d 256 (2010) |
On a certified conflict from the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided here whether a plaintiff pursuing a claim for bodily injuries caused by a dog must elect either a statutory remedy under R.C. 955.28 or a remedy at common law for negligence. The Supreme Court found that the defense's conflict case, Rodenberger v. Wadsworth, 1983 WL 7005, did not turn on the issue of whether both claims could be pursued simultaneously, but rather whether the statutory cause of action abrogated the common law cause of action (which it held did not). In looking at the plain language of R.C. 955.28, the Court found that the statute itself does not preclude a simultaneous common law action for damages for bodily injuries caused by a dog. Under both theories of recovery, compensatory damages remain the same so there is no issue of double recovery. Thus, a plaintiff may, in the same case, pursue a claim for a dog bite injury under both R.C. 955.28 and common law negligence. |
Case |
| Resolution No. 14, 2024, Accion de Amparo Rio Maranon- Peru- Do Not publish yet | Resolución 14, 2024, JUZGADO MIXTO-Nauta I |
Resolution No. 14, 2024, Accion de Amparo Rio Maranon- Peru- Do Not publish yet |
Case | |
| CL - Cruelty - Ley 20.380 | Ley 20.380 | The animal protection statute applies to all animals and strengthens the penalties established in the criminal code for animal cruelty. Under this statute, animals are sentient living beings, that are part of nature. They must be treated respectfully and unnecessary pain must be avoided. Every person that owns an animal must provide food and shelter that is adequate to their minimum needs, and must not restrict their freedom of movement in an unnecessary manner. This is true especially if it causes suffering or if it alters the normal development of the animal. Some important aspects of this law include the establishment of the duty to teach children in schools to protect and respect animals. It prohibits animal experimentation in schools and regulates the production of livestock (confinement, breeding, transport, and slaughter). The livestock service (SAG) oversees the compliance of this law during the production of livestock, and the handling of animals by zoos, circuses, and veterinary centers. However, violations of the dispositions of this law carry out monetary fines only. | Statute | |
| NJ - Veterinary - Chapter 16. Veterinary Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry. | NJSA 45:16-1 to 45:16-18 | NJ ST 45:16-1 to 45:16-18 | 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 |
| MD - Endangered Species - Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-2A-01 - 09 | MD NAT RES § 10-2A-01 - 09 | These Maryland statutes comprise the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Under the Act, any species designated under the federal Endangered Species Act is deemed an endangered species as are other species designated by the state secretary based on habitat and population factors. Violators of the Act shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both and equipment used in the taking of designated species may be seized. | Statute |
| Brown v. State | 166 So. 3d 817 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 72231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) | Defendant was found guilty of felony cruelty to animals after a Chow mix was found near defendant's mobile home emaciated and suffering from several long-term conditions that had gone untreated. Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Pasco County and was sentenced to six months of community control followed by three years of probation. She timely appealed, raising several arguments. The District Court of Florida affirmed the trial court’s decision, writing only to address her claim that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because a felony conviction for animal cruelty Florida Statutes could not be based on an omission or failure to act. In doing so, the court noted that a defendant could be properly charged with felony animal cruelty under this version of the Florida statute for intentionally committing an act that resulted in excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal by failing to provide adequate food, water, or medical treatment. The court then held that sufficient evidence existed showing that defendant owned a dog and failed, over a period of more than one year, to provide adequate food, water and needed medical care. | Case |
| Rogers v. State | 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988). |
Dog fighting case. Where the dog fighting area was in an open section of woods near the defendant's home, police officers were not required to obtain a search warrant before entering the defendant's property because of the "open fields" doctrine. |
Case | |
| UT - Agriculture - Ch. 4 Eggs | U.C.A. 1953 §§ 4-4-101 - 108. | UT ST §§ 4-4-101 - 108 | This chapter of Utah law concerns the production and sale of eggs in the state. It establishes the standards for egg grading and what forms of rot and deformities render eggs illegal to sell in the state. It also mandates that egg producers in the state maintain records for examination by the department of health and human services in order to track the spread of foodborne illnesses. | Statute |
| Animal Law Researchers' Clinic |
The Animal Law Researchers' Clinic is a space for dialogue and learning for scholars and professionals of all ages, countries, genders and positions, with the common nexus of listening to one's own voice and that of other colleagues working in the field of Animal Law and related sciences. |
Policy |