Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Ordinances - CHAPTER 287. ANIMAL INDUSTRY. DOG LAW OF 1919. | M. C. L. A. 287.289a | MI ST 287.289a | This Michigan law provides that a board of county commissioners may establish, by ordinance, an animal control agency. The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have an animal control ordinance. The county's animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expenses incurred in animal control. | Statute | |
| Trummer v. Niewisch | 792 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y., 2005) |
A woman fell from a horse during a riding lesson when her horse was frightened. The woman brought claims against the riding facility and riding instructor for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning horses becoming frightened is an inherent risk when riding. |
Case | ||
| Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, Inc. | 893 So.2d 190 (3rd Cir., 2005) | 2005 WL 233806 (3rd Cir.) |
A racehorse breeder and owner brought suit against a racetrack for the loss of future winnings after a racehorse collided with a negligently maintained gate on the racetrack. The trial court awarded plaintiff $38,000 without specifying what the award was for. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the award was not unreasonable based on the horse's racing history. |
Case | |
| US - Chimpanzees - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Chimpanzee and Pygmy Chimpanzee | 1990 WL 325467 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AB23 |
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reclassifies wild populations of the chimpanzee and all populations of the pygmy chimpanzee from threatened to endangered status. Both species have declined through such problems as massive habitat destruction, excessive hunting and capture by people, and lack of effective national and international controls. This rule will enhance the protection of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for these species. Captive populations of the chimpanzee will continue to be classified as threatened, and individuals of that species in the United States will continue to be covered by a special regulation allowing activities otherwise prohibited. |
Administrative | |
| PA - Euthanasia - The Animal Destruction Method Authorization Law | 3 P.S. § 328.101 - 3 P.S. § 328.1102 | This Pennsylvania statute provides the prohibited and authorized methods to kill or "destroy" animals within the state. The statute provides a different method for small domestic animals and also specifies which state operations and entities are excluded from following the methods as described under the statute. The statute also specifies the fines and civil penalties for violation of the statute. | Statute | ||
| MA - Hunting, Internet - § 65A. Online Shooting or Spearing | M.G.L.A. 131 § 65A | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 131, § 65A (West) | This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet and the operation of online hunting businesses within the state of Massachusetts. Violation is punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both a fine and imprisonment. | Statute | |
| LA - Dog Dangerous - Chapter 1. Criminal Code. | LA R.S. 14:102.14 | This Louisiana statute defines a "dangerous dog" as any dog which when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; or any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. | Statute | ||
| Kautzman v. McDonald | 621 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 2001) |
Plaintiffs sued defendants in their official capacities as law enforcement officers for shooting and killing their five dogs after the dogs escaped from plaintiffs' residence and began roaming the streets. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because the court held that conduct could not reasonably be viewed as extreme and outrageous after receiving testimony that the dog were aggressive toward the officers. However, the court remanded the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim for further consideration. Plaintiffs asserted that two statutes conferred a duty upon the officers; one an anti-cruelty statute and the other a statute allowing officers to take custody of abandoned animals. |
Case | ||
| Carter v. Ide | 188 S.E.2d 275 (Ga.App. 1972) | 125 Ga.App. 557 (Ga.App. 1972) |
This Georgia case involves an action for injuries received by a boy after he was attacked by the defendant's dog. The lower court granted summary judgment to the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that where there was no showing that the dog ever so much as growled at a human being before the attack, the owner of dog was not liable for injuries. Evidence that the dog previously chased a cat and had engaged in a fight with another dog was insufficient to show the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious tendencies toward humans to create liability for the owner.
|
Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. United States Department of Agriculture | 2016 WL 7235624 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) |
Foie gras is a food product made from the liver of a duck or goose. To create it, the duck or goose is force-fed a special mix of food which causes a large buildup of fat in the bird's liver. This gives the product its signature taste. Plaintiffs, Animal Legal Defense Fund, comprised of four animal rights organizations and three individuals. The Defendant, United States Department of Agriculture, comprised of the Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS), and two individuals. Plaintiff Animal Legal Defense Fund asked Defendant (FSIS) to initiate rulemaking under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) “to exclude Foie gras from the food supply as an adulterated and diseased product.” They argued that the force-feeding process could cause infections and illnesses for the animals and the consumption of the birds could trigger the onset of illness and disease in humans. FSIS denied the petition to ban the food product. The Plaintiff Animal Legal Defense Fund then filed this action for judicial review. Defendant FSIS argued that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the PPIA does not protect the interests asserted by the animal rights organizations, and that in any event, FSIS acted within its discretion in denying the petition. The United States District Court, C.D. California concluded that the Plaintiff, Animal Legal Defense Fund had standing to bring this action and that their interests fell within the “zone” of interests protected by the PPIA. However, the Court also held that Defendants, United States Department of Agriculture, did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in denying the petition. Accordingly, the Court Granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. |
Case |