Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. | 842 F.Supp.2d 1259 (S.D.Cal.,2012) | 2012 WL 399214 (S.D.Cal.,2012) |
Plaintiffs sued aquarium for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a declaration that wild-captured orcas were being held in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude. The court dismissed the action, holding that Plaintiffs had no standing because the Thirteenth Amendment only applies to humans, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. |
Case |
| CA - Reptiles & Amphibians - Division 5. Protected Reptiles and Amphibians | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 5000 - 5062 | CA FISH & G § 5000 - 5062 | These sections are the California statutes that specifically protect certain reptiles and amphibians. The sections enumerate the protected species and strictly prohibit taking and possession, with a narrow exception that may be granted by permit to an educational or scientific institution or a public zoological garden. | Statute |
| AU - Wildlife - Nature Conservation Act 2002 (TAS) | Nature Conservation Act 2002 No. 63 of 2002 31.12.2002 |
An Act to make provision with respect to the conservation and protection of the fauna, flora and geological diversity of the State, to provide for the declaration of national parks and other reserved land and for related purposes. |
Statute | |
| Beasley v. Sorsaia | 880 S.E.2d 875 (2022) | 247 W.Va. 409 (W.Va., 2022) | Petitioner was charged with animal cruelty in West Virginia. The incident stemmed from 2020 where humane officers in Putnam County seized several horses and a donkey that were denied “basic animal husbandry and adequate nutrition[.]” After the seizure, petitioner claimed the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the case because farm animals are excluded under the Code. That motion was granted by the magistrate and the animals were returned to the petitioner. After a short period of time, petitioner was charged with six counts of criminal animal cruelty and again the magistrate dismissed the complaint. However, the magistrate stayed the dismissal on the State's motion so that the circuit court could determine whether § 61-8-19(f) excludes livestock. The circuit court agreed that the section encompasses livestock from inhumane treatment and the magistrate was prohibited from dismissing the complaint. Petitioner now appeals that decision here. This court first examined the anti-cruelty statute finding that the structure of the exception under subsection (f) refers back to the conditional phrase that ends in "standards" for keeping the listed categories of animals. The court disagreed with the petitioner's claim of a "blanket exclusion" for livestock since the Commissioner of Agriculture has promulgated rules that govern the care of livestock animals that includes equines. The court rejected petitioner's attempt to parse the placement of clauses and antecedents to support her claim. The court held that § 61-8-19(f) establishes an exclusion for farm livestock only when they are “kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock ... production and management." The circuit court's writ of prohibition was affirmed and the matter was remanded. | Case |
| AL - Lien, vet - § 35-11-390. Lien declared | Ala. Code 1975 § 35-11-390 - 391 | AL ST § 35-11-390 - 391 | This Alabama section relates to veterinary liens. The law states that every licensed veterinarian has a lien on every animal kept, fed, treated or surgically treated or operated on by him or her while in his or her custody and under contract with the owner of such animal. This lien is for payment of the veterinarian's charges for keeping, feeding, treating or surgically treating or operating on such animal, and the vet has the right to retain such animal until said charges are paid. | Statute |
| European Union - COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes | Administrative | |||
| IN RE: RONNIE FAIRCLOTH AND JR's AUTO & PARTS, INC. | 52 Agric. Dec. 171 (1993) | 1993 WL 151164 (U.S.D.A.) | Individual who owned auto parts company, and who kept exotic animals on premises (allegedly as pets), was exhibitor for purposes of Act, even though economic benefit to him from exhibiting animals to public was de minimis, because individual's activities were in commerce. | Case |
| AK - Assistance Animal - Alaska's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | A. S. § 09.65.150; 11.76.130; 11.76.133, 28.23.120 | AK ST § 09.65.150; 11.76.130; 11.76.133, 28.23.120 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Sheldon Park Tenants v. ACHA | The Allegheny Public Housing Authority decided to enforce it's "no pets" rule after years of unenforcement. This is a brief in arbitration. The tenants won. Includes a very interesting discussion of depression as a disability. | Pleading | ||
| Brown v. Crocker | 139 So.2d 779 (La. 1962) |
This action in tort was instituted by plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of his minor son, against the defendant to recover the value of a quarter-horse mare and a stillborn colt, and for damages occasioned by shock and mental anguish suffered by the son, as well as for services of a veterinarian and medicines used in treatment of the mare following her wounding by a shotgun blast intentionally inflicted by the defendant. The Court of Appeal in upheld an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish experienced by the child who could not stop crying about the loss of his horse and the colt that never was. As the court stated, "Under the facts and circumstances, an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish suffered by the minor would, in our opinion, do justice between the parties." |
Case |