Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beck v. Cornell University | 42 A.D.3d 609 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2007) | 2007 WL 1931363 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 839 N.Y.S.2d 575 |
Plaintiff was a temporary employee in the dairy barns at defendant's Animal Science Teaching and Research Center, where a population of feral cats had been living. The Center had previously cared for the cats, but adopted a new policy to reduce the population for health and safety reasons. Despite the Center's directions not to feed the cats, the plaintiff continued to feed the cats with his own cat food and was fired. Plaintiff brought a suit for negligence and prima facie tort, which Supreme Court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and the appellate court affirmed. |
Case | |
| CA - Hunting - Article 2.5. Hunter's Safety. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3049 - 3055.1 | CA FISH & G § 3049 -3055.1 | The Legislature of California in these sections finds and declares that individuals who engage in hunting should possess an adequate understanding of hunter safety practices, principles of conservation, and sportsmanship. In order to achieve these goals, hunters must procure a license and complete a course in hunter safety. | Statute | |
| Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Hodel | 799 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir. 1986) |
Horses protected by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act are not instruments of the federal government, and therefore incursions by wild horses onto private land do not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking requiring just compensation. |
Case | ||
| D. Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar y otros con Ilustre Municipalidad de Viña del Mar | 491-2015 | The ‘Sociedad Protectora de Cocheros de Viña del Mar’ and the owners of ‘Coches Victoria’ filed a complaint or ‘acción de protección’ against Viña del Mar and its Mayor, arguing that municipal decree Nº 11.349, 2014 and the ordinance for the transportation of Passengers in Victoria carriages in Viña del Mar were arbitrary an illegal. The plaintiffs requested the modification of many clauses of the ordinance such as those related to the restriction of schedules and routes, the social evaluation of carriage owners, the requirement of specific technical characteristics for carriages, and the limitation on the number of carriages that a person could own. The Plaintiffs argued that the clauses affected the general interest of the community and the rights of the plaintiffs and their families such as the right to equality, the right against discrimination in the economy, the right to physical and emotional integrity, the right to privacy, and the right to property. The city argued that the statute of limitations had already expired, and that additionally, it had the authority to regulate transportation. Furthermore, the city stated that the ordinance was enacted with the purpose of improving passenger safety and the well-being of the horses. The court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its authority to regulate transportation and finding that the ordinance did not violate any of the constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the ordinance was upheld. | Case | ||
| NV - Leash Law - Chapter 503. Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; Miscellaneous Protective Measures | N.R.S. 503.631, 636 | NV ST 503.631, 636 | This Nevada statute makes it illegal to permit such dog to run at large if such dog is actively tracking, pursuing, harassing, attacking or killing any wildlife in a state-owned wildlife management area. | Statute | |
| Conte v. Fossett | Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL 1143329 (Del.Super.,2013) | No. 12A-03-007 JRJ | Plaintiff and defendant were a non-married couple that shared ownership of a miniature dauschund. Defendant asked for the dog, but plaintiff repeatedly declined. Eventually, Plaintiff gave in and purchased the dog for defendant. The parties shared ownership, expenses, and labor involved in caring for the dog. Eventually, the parties broke up, and began a shared-custody arrangement for the dog. However, the relationship between the parties further soured, and defendant kept the dog in her possession. Plaintiff filed suit for sole possession of the dog. The trial court found that the dog was a gift from plaintiff to defendant in contemplation of the relationship, and awarded possession to plaintiff. On appeal, the court found that there was no basis to assume that the dog was a gift given in anticipation of marriage. Therefore, defendant had no basis to pursue recovery of the dog. | Case | |
| CT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | C. G. S. A. § 53-242 - 254; § 29-108a - 108i; § 53a-73b | CT ST §§ 53-242 - 254; § 29-108a - 108i; § 53a-73b |
This Connecticut section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Any person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats or kills or unjustifiably injures any animal , or fails to give an animal in his or her custody proper care, among other things shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony. Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal is also guilty of a Class D felony. Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section as a Class D felony. Connecticut has a cruelty to poultry law that provides that any crate or other container used for the purpose of transporting, shipping or holding for sale any live poultry must be in a sanitary condition with sufficient ventilation and warmth to prevent unnecessary suffering. Other provisions include laws against dyeing chicks and rabbits, docking horses' tails, and the use of animals, birds, or reptiles to solicit money. |
Statute | |
| Rehn v. Fischley | No. C0-95-813, 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 1539 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). |
The doctor was a veterinarian and a member of the board of directors for the humane society. The director of the humane society asked her for advice on how to clean cat cages, and the doctor gave advice and donated a bottle of formalin, whereupon the employee who used the formalin suffered permanent lung damage. The employee commenced an action against the doctor and humane society for damages. The court held that although the doctor would not have advised using formalin if she was not a member of the board, this fact did not establish that giving the advice was within the scope of her responsibilities as a board member. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - 1970 Amendments to AWA, House Report No. 91-1651 | House Report No. 91-1651 |
By 1970 it was apparent that changes in the law would be required if the goal of humane treatment of animals was to be realized. There were four areas of significant change to the AWA in the 1970 amendments (definition of animal, expansion of who is subject to AWA, laboratory practices, and enforcement). |
Statute | ||
| AL - Importation - Chapter 80-3-6. Livestock Sanitary Rules | AL ADC 80-3-6-..22, .23, and .24 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 80-3-6-.22, .23, and .24 | These selected regulations concern import, transport, or exhibition of wild, semi-wild, and exotic animals, and the import of dogs and cats. | Administrative |