Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cole v. Hubanks | 681 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 2003) | 2004 WI 74 |
Police officer was injured by homeowner's dog and sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that public policy does not dictate extending the firefighter's rule to the police officer, and therefore, that the officer could sue for injuries received as a result of the bite. Reversed and remanded. |
Case | |
| ALDF v. Glickman | 204 F.3d 229(2000) | 340 U.S.App.D.C. 191(2000) |
Animal welfare organization and individual plaintiffs brought action against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging regulations promulgated under Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well-being of nonhuman primates kept by exhibitors and researchers. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) regulations were valid, and (2) animal welfare organization did not have standing to raise procedural injury. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act |
Case | |
| Palfreyman v. Gaconnet | 561 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. App. Sept. 27, 2018) | 2018 WL 4624208 (Tex. App. Sept. 27, 2018) | This Texas appeals presents the unique question of whether companion animals, specifically "pet dogs," can be considered "stock" for awarding attorney fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001(6) in lawsuits concerning their injury or death. The facts stem from an incident at appellees' dog boarding business where Palfreyman's two dogs died. In Palfreyman's original petition, she sought damages based on claims of negligence and gross negligence. She additionally requested reasonable attorney fee's under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(6) for "killed or injured stock." Appellees countered that Palfreyman could not recover attorney fees because the dogs were not "stock" as used in the statute. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court refused to consider the award of attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first notes that Texas law does not allow recovery of attorney fees unless they are authorized by statute or contract. Here, the court examined the word "stock" as used in the cited law. While there is no definition in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the word "stock" is rarely used in Texas statutes, the term "livestock" is defined in several instances. In particular, the Penal Code distinguishes "livestock" from "nonlivestock animals" that include domesticated dogs. Further, the ordinary dictionary definition for stock would not include pets like dogs. The court was not persuaded by Palfreyman's argument that the Code should be liberally construed to promote its underlying purpose as well as her other examples of definitions for "stock." Thus, the court concluded the term “stock” in section 38.001(6) does not include pet dogs and appellant was not entitled to attorney fees under Section 38.001(6).5. Finally, Palfreyman contended in her reply brief that attorney fees may be awarded in bailment actions. However, the court declined this argument because she did not raise this in her initial brief so the court is not required to consider this new argument. The trial court's judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| Animals Used in Entertainment |
Circuses and the Laws Governing Them
|
Policy | |||
| VA - Rabies - § 3.2-6525. Regulations to prevent spread of rabies | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6525 | VA ST § 3.2-6525 | This Virginia statute provides that the governing body of any county, city or town may adopt such ordinances, regulations or other measures as may be deemed reasonably necessary to prevent the spread within its boundaries of the disease of rabies, and to regulate and control the running at large within its boundaries of vicious or destructive dogs. Penalties may be provided for the violation of any such ordinances. The governing body of any county that has adopted the urban county executive form of government may adopt an ordinance creating a program for the distribution of oral rabies vaccine within its boundaries to prevent the spread of rabies. | Statute | |
| Levine v. Knowles | 197 So.2d 329 (Fla.App. 1967) |
This negligence action for both compensatory and punitive damages results from the premature cremation of 'Tiki,' a Toy Chihuahua dog, who died while undergoing apparently routine treatment for a skin condition. Plaintiff instructed the veterinarian to keep Tiki's body so that he could have an autopsy performed, but the dog's body was cremated before it could be claimed so that, according to plaintiff, defendant could avoid malpractice claims. In this case, the court only determined that under the facts peculiar to this case, an action for damages was sufficiently alleged by the complaint and the defendant has failed to conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of all material issues of fact so as to be entitled to a summary final judgment. |
Case | ||
| State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats | 785 N.W.2d 272 (S.D.,2010) | 2010 S.D. 50 (S.D.,2010) |
Under a statute that allowed an officer to impound animals without a warrant if exigent circumstances exist, fifteen unconfined cats, who were roaming around a vehicle, were impounded. At a hearing to ratify the impoundment, the court found a large number of unconfined cats that obstructed the defendant's view for driving constituted exigent circumstances under SDCL 40-1-5. After a motion was granted to transfer ownership of the cats to a local humane society for adoption, the defendant appealed. The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision. |
Case | |
| US - CITES Regs - Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plant | 50 C.F.R. § 23.1 to 92 |
These regulations describe the purpose of CITES, the criteria for listing in the appendices, and the requirements for importing or exporting protected animals or plants. |
Administrative | ||
| England, Wales & Scotland - Wildlife - Deer Act 1991 | 1991 CHAPTER 54 | This Act makes it a an offence to take or intentionally kill certain deer during the closed season, and to kill any deer at night (with exceptions). Various methods used to take or kill deer are also prohibited. | Statute | ||
| WY - Trust - § 4-10-409. Trust for care of animal | W. S. 1977 § 4-10-409 | WY ST § 4-10-409 | This statute represents Wyoming's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the last animal named in the trust. | Statute |