Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plotnik v. Meihaus | 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) | 208 Cal.App.4th 1590; 2012 WL 3764874 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) |
A long history of bad neighborly relations resulted in the plaintiffs' dog sustaining injuries from being hit with a baseball; the injuries required surgery and post-operative care. While the plaintiffs brought many causes of actions against their neighbors, a father and his two sons, this case is significant in the realm of animal law because it held that a pet owner may recover for emotional distress under the trespass to personal property cause of action. The court, however, would not allow the plaintiffs to recover for their dog's injuries under the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action because they would have recovered duplicative damages for the same transactional event. |
Case |
| McAdams v. Faulk (unpublished) | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 700956 (Ark.App.) |
Dog owner brought dog to veterinarian’s office where someone choked the dog, causing injuries that led to its death. The Court of Appeals held that the owner stated a veterinary malpractice claim against veterinarian because owner alleged that dog was choked while in veterinarian's care, that veterinarian failed to diagnose neck injury that proved fatal, performed unnecessary treatment out of greed, and refused to provide owner with medical explanation of dog's condition and death, all in violation of the veterinary licensing statute. The Court also held that violating the cruelty to animals statute was evidence of negligence, and that damages included economic loss, compensation for mental anguish, including future anguish. and punitive damages. |
Case | |
| WY - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. 1977 § 6-5-211; § 11-31-101 - 108; § 11-31-201 - 214; § 11-31-301; § 15-1-103; § 23-3-109; § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 6-5-211; § 11-31-101 - 108; § 11-31-201 - 214; § 11-31-301; § 15-1-103; § 23-3-109; § 33-30-215 | These Wyoming statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include damage done to livestock by dogs, rabies vaccination requirements, and municipal powers to regulate dogs. | Statute |
| CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 1. Taking and Possessing in General | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2000 - 2024 | CA FISH & G § 2000 - 2024 | These sections make it unlawful to take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided in this code. Some of the restrictions in the code refer to taking after season, offering a prize or inducement to take game, setting a bounty for an animal, using sniper scopes, artificial lights, or trap guns. Section 2009 also makes it a crime willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, or fishing. | Statute |
| SC - Bite - § 47-3-110. Liability for attacks by dogs, provoked attacks, trained law enforcement dogs. | Code 1976 § 47-3-110 | SC ST § 47-3-110 | This South Carolina statute provides that if a person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog while the person is in a public place or is lawfully in a private place, including the property of the dog owner or person having the dog in the person's care or keeping, the dog owner or person having the dog in the person's care or keeping is liable for the damages suffered by the person bitten or otherwise attacked. If a person provokes a dog into attacking him then the owner of the dog is not liable. | Statute |
| State v. Mauer | 688 S.E.2d 774 (N.C.App., 2010) | 2010 WL 537493 (N.C.App.), 202 N.C.App. 546 (2010) |
In this North Carolina case, Defendant appealed her conviction for misdemeanor animal cruelty. Defendant primarily argued that the “evidence failed to establish that mere exposure to the living conditions constituted torment as defined by § 14-306(c).” The Court disagreed, finding that the stench of defendant's residence required the fire department to bring breathing apparatus for the animal control officers and urine and feces coated "everything" in the house, including the cats, was sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable jury that defendant “tormented” cat C142, causing it unjustifiable pain or suffering. The Court, however, vacated the order of restitution for $ 259.22 and remanded for a hearing on the matter because there was no evidence presented at trial supporting the award. |
Case |
| Ley de Protección para la Fauna en el Estado de Chiapas | Ley de Protección para la Fauna en el Estado de Chiapas | The Wildlife Protection Law in the State of Chiapas primarily emphasizes the protection and responsible use of "fauna" to ensure the welfare of both wild and domestic animals. Noteworthy provisions of this law include the prohibition of circuses, animal fighting, and the use of animals for teaching purposes and experiments at all educational levels throughout the state, except for higher education levels when such practices are necessary for their educational objectives. This law also defines "animal cruelty" as suffering, torture, or mistreatment. | Statute | |
| Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd | (2001) 208 CLR 199 | (2001) 185 ALR 1; (2001) 76 ALJR 1; (2001) 22(19) Leg Rep 11; (2001) 54 IPR 161; (2001) Aust Torts Reports 81-627; [2001] HCA 63 |
The respondent was successful in obtaining an injunction against the appellants from publishing a film displaying possums being stunned and killed at an abattoir. The film had been obtained from a third party while trespassing. The Court found that it was not unconscionable for the appellants to publish the film and a corporation did not have a right to privacy. |
Case |