Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Williams v. Neutercorp (Unpublished) | 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 833 (Tex Ct. App. Apr. 20, 1995). |
Appellant sought review of the order from the County Court dismissing appellant's lawsuit after it sustained the special exception filed by appellee company, appellee animal hospital, and appellee veterinarian in appellant's suit which alleged negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50. The special execption is that the Veterinary Licensing Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 8890, 18C, expressly provided that the DTPA did not apply in veterinary malpractice cases.The court affirmed the lower court's order dismissing appellant's suit against appellees because the lower court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant's pleadings with prejudice, after the lower court sustained the special exception regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, and after appellant refused to amend her pleading. |
Case | |
| PR - Domestic Violence - § 1678 Protection orders | PR ST T. 5 § 1678 |
This Puerto Rico law provides that, in all cases in which a person is accused of domestic violence or child abuse, the court shall, by petition of party, issue a protection order for the petitioner so that he/she be the sole custodian of the animal. The court shall order the accused to keep far away from the animal and prohibit contact of any kind. Violation is a fourth-degree felony. |
Statute | |
| R. v. Baird | 1994 CarswellNWT 58 |
The defendant, George Baird, was charged on indictment that he caused bodily harm to Amelia Debogorski by criminal negligence stemming from his keeping of dangerous dogs. While the dogs self-evidently proved to be highly dangerous to the victim, there was little evidence of their prior dangerous intent simply because they ran at large. As a result, the court then found that there was reasonable doubt whether the danger was known and recognized by Mr. Baird prior to the attack. The court found that there insufficient proof to find that Baird acted with "wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The court also observed that while there may or may not have been civil negligence, this was not enough to sustain a conviction for criminal negligence. |
Case | |
| Watzig v. Tobin | 623 P.2d 1121 (1981) |
This is an appeal of a district court decision on property damages from plaintiff's car hitting defendant's cow. On appeal, the Court determined that the animal owners did not violate a closed range statute merely because their cow was on a public highway, that the presence of an animal on a public highway does not establish that the animal owners were negligent, and that the driver of an automobile has a duty to maintain a reasonable outlook for animals on public highways. |
Case | |
| NY - Municipal power - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 124 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 124 | This New York law provides that the commissioner is hereby authorized to (a) promulgate, after public hearing, such rules and regulations as are necessary to supplement and give full effect to the provisions of sections one hundred thirteen, one hundred fourteen and one hundred seventeen of this article; and (b) exercise all other powers and functions as are necessary to carry out the duties and purposes set forth in sections one hundred thirteen, one hundred fourteen and one hundred seventeen of this article. | Statute |
| State v. Peterson | 174 Wash. App. 828, 301 P.3d 1060 review denied, 178 Wash. 2d 1021, 312 P.3d 650 (2013) | 2013 WL 2156837 (Wa. Ct. App.) |
In this case, defendant appeals six counts of first degree animal cruelty charges. On appeal, the defendant argued that (1) the statute she was convicted under, RCW 16.52.205(6), was unconstitutionally vague; that (2) starvation and dehydration were alternative means of committing first degree animal cruelty and that (3) there was no substantial evidence supporting the horses suffered from dehydration. The defendant also argued that the Snohomish Superior court had no authority to order her to reimburse the county for caring for her horses. The appeals court, however, held that RCW 16.52.205(6) was not unconstitutionally vague; that starvation and dehydration were alternative means to commit first degree animal cruelty, but there was substantial evidence to support the horses suffered from dehydration; and that the superior court had authority to order the defendant to pay restitution to the county. |
Case |
| Barrett v. State | 220 N.Y. 423 (N.Y. 1917) |
This case concerns a New York law that protected beavers and their habitat in New York by stating that no one "shall molest or disturb any wild beaver or the dams, houses, homes or abiding places of same." The claimants owned land that endured considerable commercial destruction due to the beavers that were present. Claimants were initially awarded damages and alleged on appeal that the law represented an unconstitutional exercise of police power and, that, since the beavers were "owned" by the state at the time of the destruction, the state is liable for the damage. The Court disagreed, finding the ownership of wildlife is in the state in its sovereign capacity, for the benefit of all the people. As a result, the state was acting in its proper police power authority and is not liable for the damage that ensued from "liberating" the beaver. |
Case | |
| Scotland - Wild Mammals - Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 | 2002 asp 6 | An Act to prohibit deliberate hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The Act also makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of land to knowingly allow another person to hunt wild mammals with dogs on their land. Stalking and flushing is exempted in certain circumstances, for example, in order to protect livestock, providing food for animal or consumption, or controlling pest species. | Statute | |
| US - Horse - Chapter 44. Protection of Horses. | 15 U.S.C.A. § 1821 - 1831 | The Federal Horse Protection Act of December 2, 1970, states that causing horses to be "sore" or to suffer physical pain and distress for the purpose of improving the horse's performance is cruel and inhumane. This set of statutes describes both lawful and unlawful conduct against horses as well as the civil and criminal penalties that are in place for violating this Act. | Statute | |
| ND - Eagle - Chapter 20.1-04. Birds, Regulations. | NDCC 20.1-04-05 (repealed 2017) | ND ST 20.1-04-05 | (Repealed 2017) North Dakota has a statute that specifically prohibits any taking or possession of bald and golden eagles or their parts. Included in the prohibited acts are take, kill, hunt, possess, pursue, or even disturb. Buying and selling are not specifically listed, but are presumed to be included in possess. | Statute |