Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thurston v. Carter | 92 A. 295 (Maine, 1914) | L.R.A. 1915C,359, 112 Me. 361, 92 A. 295, Am.Ann.Cas. 1917A,389 | This action of trespass is brought for the recovery of damages for the killing of the fox hound of plaintiff by defendant. Defendant claimed that he shot and killed the plaintiff's dog while it was chasing and worrying a cat belonging to and upon the land of the defendant. After the introduction of all the evidence, the court ordered a verdict for defendant. To this direction, plaintiff filed his bill of exceptions in which it is stipulated that if a cat is a domestic animal, the ruling below is to stand, otherwise judgment is to be entered for plaintiff in the sum of $50. | Case |
| Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, L.L.C. v. Department of Agriculture | 539 F.3d 492 (D.C.Cir., 2008) | 2008 WL 3980533 (C.A.D.C.) | Plaintiff, a supplier of beef products, brought an action against Defendant, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), after the USDA denied Plaintiff’s request to purchase Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) testing kits. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit found that the USDA has authority under the Virus Serum Toxin Act (VSTA) to regulate the use of biological products, the USDA’s interpretation of VSTA allowing the USDA to deny an import permit based on the product’s intended use was not inconsistent with the regulation and was therefore entitled to deference by the Court, the USDA’s interpretation of the word “treatment” as including diagnostic activities was entitled to deference, and that BSE testing is a diagnostic activity for purposes of VSTA. | Case |
| Brower v. Evans | 257 F.3d 1058 (2001) |
The district court held that the Secretary's Initial Finding, triggering a change in the dolphin-safe label standard, was not in accordance with the law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to (1) obtain and consider preliminary data from the congressionally mandated stress studies and (2) apply the proper legal standard to the available scientific information. We affirm. |
Case | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - MAHARASHTRA ANIMAL PRESERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1995 | The Act amends the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. While the 1976 Act prohibited the slaughter of cows, the Amendment additionally prohibits the slaughter of bulls and bullocks. | Statute | ||
| VA - Research Animals - § 32.1-162.32. Definitions | VA Code Ann. § 32.1-162.32 | This 2018 law states that no funds appropriated, granted, or awarded by the Commonwealth shall be used by any person or entity, public or private, to directly fund medically unnecessary research classified under pain and distress category E by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on animal subjects. “Medically unnecessary” means not carried out solely for the better health, welfare, or safety of the animal subject. | Statute | |
| Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Policy | ||
| City of Houston v. Levingston | 221 S.W.3d 204 (Tx.App.-Hous.(1 Dist.) 2006) |
This opinion substitutes City of Houston v. Levingston, 2006 WL 241127 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.)), which is withdrawn. |
Case | |
| Canada - Dog, dangerous - Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act | S.N.S. 1998, c. 18, s. 174 - 179 | Certain sections (ss.175-179) of this Nova Scotia statute deal with dog ownership, and the consequences for failing to control a dog, or owning one who causes harm to people or property. | Statute | |
| DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo | 462 A.2d 1260 (N.J. 1983) | 94 N.J. 144 (1983) |
The principal issue in this New Jersey case is the liability of a dog owner to an infant plaintiff bitten by the owner's dog. At trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, affirmed. A factual issue existed at the trial, however, as to whether the infant plaintiff was lawfully on the property of the owner, but the trial court did not submit that question to the jury. The omission is important because the "dog-bite" statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, imposes absolute liability on an owner whose dog bites someone who is "lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog." If the plaintiff was a trespasser, he was not lawfully on the property, and liability should not be determined under the statute but according to common-law principles. It was necessary to find that the invitation to infant plaintiff to be on defendant's property extended to the area where the dog was chained. |
Case |
| NV - Washoe County - Chapter 55: Animals and Fowl (Sections 55.110; 55.390 - 55.450) | The Washoe County Code, Chapter 55: Animals and Fowl, §§ 55.110, 55.390 - 55.450 (2012) |
These Washoe County, Nevada ordinances prohibit any person from keeping an animal unless the area in which the animal lives is kept clean and free of offensive odors and animal wastes. Additionally, these ordinances also require that any person who wishes to keep more than 3 adult dogs or 7 adult cats obtain a permit; permit requirement, exemption, and revocation or suspension provisions are also included, as are the penalties for violating these provisions. |
Local Ordinance |