Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Environment & Conservation [2007] NSWSC 221

The applicants sought to restrain a proposed aerial shooting of pigs and goats on interlocutory basis pending the outcome of a suit claiming the aerial shooting would constitute cruelty. It was found that the applicants did not have a 'special interest' and as such did not have standing to bring the injunction. The application was dismissed.

Case
Volosen v. State 192 S.W.3d 597(Tex.App.-Fort Worth, 2006) 2006 WL 349713 (Tx. 2006)

In this Texas case, the trial court found Appellant Mircea Volosen guilty of animal cruelty for killing a neighbor's dog. The sole issue on appeal is whether the State met its burden of presenting legally sufficient evidence that Volosen was "without legal authority" to kill the dog. By statute, a dog that "is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked ... fowls may be killed by ... any person witnessing the attack." The court found that no rational trier of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog was not attacking or had not recently attacked chickens in a pen in Volosen's yard; thus, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that Volosen killed the dog "without legal authority" as required to sustain a conviction for animal cruelty.  Judgment Reversed by Volosen v. State , 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex.Crim.App., 2007).

Case
WY - Initiative - Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap, Amendment B Amendment B (2012) The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens' opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law. It was passed by 84.8% of voters in 2012. Statute
Lamare v. North Country Animal League 743 A.2d 598 (Vt. 1999)

Owners of a licensed dog that escaped while not wearing its tags filed an action against a local animal shelter that ultimately released the dog to others for adoption.  The court held that the town's actions fully complied with its animal control ordinance and that its ordinance provided ample notice to plaintiffs consistent with state law and due process requirements.

Case
David v. Lose 218 N.E.2d 442 (Ohio 1966) 7 Ohio St.2d 97, 36 O.O.2d 81 (Ohio 1966)
Syllabus by the Court
1. In order to establish a prima facie case against a bailee in an action sounding in contract, a bailor need prove only (1) the contract of bailment, (2) delivery of the bailed property to the bailee and (3) failure of the bailee to redeliver the bailed property undamaged at the termination of the bailment.
2. In an action by a bailor against a bailee based upon a breach of the contract of bailment, where the bailor proves delivery of the bailed property and the failure of the bailee to redeliver upon legal demand therefor, a prima facie case of want of due care is thereby established, and the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the bailee to to explain his failure to redeliver. (Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Constantine, 144 Ohio St. 275, 58 N.E.2d 658, followed.)
Case
Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 2011 Chapter 15 This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals, and prohibits facilitating, attending or participating in hare coursing events. Statute
WA - Ordinances - 16.10.040. Dog control zones--Regulations--License fees, collection, disposition West's RCWA 16.10.040 WA ST 16.10.040 This Washington statute provides that the county commissioners shall by ordinance promulgate the regulations to be enforced within a dog control zone. These shall include provisions for the control of unlicensed dogs and the establishment of license fees. Statute
City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990).

City's animal control ordinance banning the keeping of pit bulls was not preempted by state Penal Code provisions governing the keeping of vicious dogs.

Case
US - Wolf - Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To R FWS–R6–ES–2008–0008; 92220–1113– 0000; ABC Code: C6

The FWS identifies the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and removes this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, except in Wyoming.   The wolf population in this area is about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal.  The gray wolf is not removed from the list in Wyoming because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms

Administrative
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd. 895 P.2d 1269 (Nev.,1995) 111 Nev. 615, 23 Media L. Rep. 1961 (Nev.,1995)

In this Nevada case, respondent Berosini claimed that two animal rights organizations, PETA and Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), and three individuals defamed him and invaded his privacy. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdicts on the libel and invasion of privacy claims in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. On appeal, this Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and reversed the judgment. The court found that the videotapes of Berosini beating his animal performers before the show was not libelous because they were not false or defamatory. The videotape was not “false” because it was an accurate portrayal of the manner in which Berosini disciplined his animals backstage before performances and it was not not defamatory because Berosini took the position that the shaking, punching, and beating that appear on the tape were necessary, appropriate and “justified” for the training, discipline, and control of show animals. With regard to his invasion of privacy claims, the videotaping did not invade the scope of Berosini's expectation of privacy because his asserted expectation was "freedom from distracting intrusion and interference with his animals and his pre-act disciplinary procedures." Thus, the filming did not intrude upon Berosini's expected seclusion.

Case

Pages