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 | |
| Renzo v. Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture | 241 P.3d 950 (Idaho, 2010) | 2010 WL 3855338 (Idaho), 149 Idaho 777 (2010) |
A tiger habitat developer sued the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (Department) under the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) for breach of ordinary care in refusing to grant exotic animal possession and propagation permits and for intentional interference with developer's prospective economic advantage. The Court held that the time period under which the developer had to file notice of its claim began to run when the Department sent its letter stating that a possession permit would be conditioned upon the tigers’ sterilization. This letter put developer on notice that he would not receive a possession permit without sterilizing the tigers, and therefore, had knowledge that he would not be granted a propagation permit. |
Case | |
| Salazar v. Kubic | 370 P.3d 342 (Col. Ct. App. Div. VI, 2015) | 2015 WL 5895438 (Col. Ct. App. Div. VI); 2015 COA 148 | At her facility, Defendant raised and housed more than 200 mice and rats to be sold as feed for snakes and other carnivores. Until March 2013, Defendant had a valid license issued under Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA), but it expired. Upon the expiration Defendant kept operating her facility despite a cease and desist order from the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture. The trial court granted the Commissioner's request for a permanent injunction to prevent Defendant from operating without the required PACFA license and from violating the cease and desist order. On appeal, the court rejected Defendant’s argument that her rodents were outside PACFA’s “pet animal” definition, despite the fact the mice and rats she sold were used as food, not household pets. Additionally, the court found rats and mice did not fit within the statutory exemptions for livestock or “any other animal designated by the Commissioner.” The court was also unpersuaded that Defendants rodents were “working animals” because there was no indication that she used them to perform any function that could be considered “work.” The district court’s decision was affirmed. | Case | |
| MT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | MCA 45-8-209 - 211; 45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | MT ST 45-8-209 to 45-8-211;45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | This section comprises Montana's anti-cruelty and dogfighting laws. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment or neglect; fails to provide an animal in the person's custody with food and water of sufficient quantity or minimum protection for the animal from adverse weather conditions; or, in cases of immediate, obvious, serious illness or injury, fails to provide licensed veterinary or other appropriate medical care. Animal abandonment of a "helpless animal" or abandoning any animal on any highway, railroad, or in any other place where it may suffer is also considered cruelty. A first conviction results in a possible $1,000/1 year imprisonment with graduating penalty enhancements for subsequent convictions. This section does not prohibit a person humanely destroying an animal for just cause or the use of commonly accepted agricultural and livestock practices on livestock (among other things). Section 217 defines aggravated cruelty as either knowingly or purposely killing or inflicting cruelty to an animal with the purpose of terrifying, torturing, or mutilating the animal, or inflicting cruelty to animals on a collection, kennel, or herd of 10 or more animals. | Statute | |
| IL - Endangered Species - Act 10. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act | 520 I.L.C.S. 10/1 - 11 | IL ST CH 520 § 10/1 - 11 | These Illinois statutes set out the definitions related to endangered species and include prohibitions on the taking, transporting, and buying or selling of listed species, among other things. Permits are issued for the enhancement of the survival of the species and limited permits are issued for incidental takings. Violation of the statute results in a Class A misdemeanor and forfeiture of both the species taken and instrumentalities used in the taking are provided. | 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 | ||
| Gallick v. Barto | 828 F.Supp. 1168 (M.D.Pa.,1993) |
In this Pennsylvania case, the parents of a 7-month old child sued the landlords of tenants who owned a ferret that bit the child on the face causing injury. The court stated that the resolution of this motion for summary judgment depended first on whether the ferret is deemed a wild animal. In ruling that the ferret is indeed a wild animal, the court noted that ferrets have been known to return to a feral state upon escaping and people have kept ferrets as house pets only in recent years. In Pennsylvania, the general rule is that a landlord out of possession is not liable for injuries caused by animals kept by tenants when the tenant has exclusive control of the premises except where the landlord has knowledge of the presence of the dangerous animal and where he or she has the right to control or remove the animal by retaking possession of the premises. The court found that since a ferret is a wild animal, the landlords were aware of the presence of the ferret, and plaintiffs may be able to prove that the landlords had the ability to exercise control over the premises prior to the incident, the landlords may be held liable under a theory of negligence. The motion for summary judgment was denied.
|
Case | ||
| TN - Wildlife, commercial use - 1660-01-17-.01. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL USE. | TN ADC 1660-01-17-.01 | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-17-.01 | This Tennessee regulation describes the commercial use of wildlife. Under the regulation, the commercial use of any State or Federally endangered species is prohibited. The commercial use of State and Federally threatened species and those species deemed in need of management are permitted only when such species are legally taken for the purpose of sale in the State of origin as provided in T.C.A. 70-8-109. | Administrative | |
| Holcomb v. Long | 765 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) |
In this case, Michael Holcomb filed a civil action against Charles Long alleging that Long’s negligence in saddling one of the horses that he owned resulted in Holcomb falling from the horse and suffering serious injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Long holding that he was entitled to civil immunity under Georgia’s Injuries From Equine or Llama Activities Act. Holcomb appealed the trial court’s decision arguing that Long’s negligence was not covered by the act. The court of appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court of appeals determined that the issue with the saddle that caused Holcomb to fall did not fall under any of the exceptions under the Act that would allow Long to be civilly liable. As a result, the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Long. |
Case | ||
| Finland - Animal Welfare Act | (247/1996, amendments up to 1430/2006 included) | The objective of the Finnish Animal Welfare Act is to protect animals from distress, pain and suffering in the best possible way. Another objective is to promote the welfare and good treatment of animals. In meeting these objectives, the Act prohibits inflicting undue pain and distress on animals; what is considered undue pain and distress is discussed by decree. The act also contains special provisions concerning hunting, keeping wild animals in zoos, fishing, veterinary medication, animal breeding, artificial propagation of animals, animal testing on vertebrates, animal transportation, gene technology and nature conservation. | Statute |