Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McAllister v. Wiegand | 2009CarswellOnt189 |
The plaintiff, a 55-year old woman and recent acquaintance of the defendants, was bitten on the cheek by the defendant's bull mastiff dog, resulting in a spreading infection and loss of all her teeth. The plaintiff was an invited guest in the defendant's home where she had been on 3-4 prior occasions. There was a question over whether the incident arose when the plaintiff startled the dog from sleep by petting it while bending over it, or whether the dog had just awakened when it was petted and bit her. The court found that dog and plaintiff were familiar with each other and there was nothing provocative that should have caused the dog to retaliate. Thus according to Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act, where owners are strictly or absolutely liable for their dogs' injuries to others, the defendants were strictly liable to the plaintiff for her injuries. |
Case | |
| Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office | 673 S.E.2d 423 (S.C.,2009) | 381 S.C. 357 (2009); 2009 WL 294756 |
In this South Carolina case, the court considered the meaning of the term "or" in the state's dog bite statute, SC ST 47-3-110, and whether that word allows a plaintiff to pursue a statutory claim against the owner of the dog while that dog is in the care of another. The facts concerned a veterinary assistant who sued a county sheriff's officer after she was bitten by a police dog while the dog was kenneled at the veterinary clinic where she worked. The lower court granted summary judgment for the sheriff's office. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. Based on a plain language reading of the statute, the Court concluded that the Legislature intended to allow a claim against the owner of the dog when another person has the dog in his care or keeping. |
Case |
| NH - Trusts - Chapter 564-B. Uniform Trust Code. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 564-B:4-408 | NH ST § 564-B:4-408 | This statute represents New Hampshire's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute |
| Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt. | 100 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024) | In this case, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) approved the construction of Vineyard Wind, a wind power project off the coast of Massachusetts after consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”). A group of Nantucket residents, organized as "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines" (“Residents”), allege that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction likely would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment for BOEM and NMFS. On appeal of summary judgment, the Residents further allege that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on NMFS's flawed analysis. The court rejected the Residents' argument, finding that NMFS's biological opinion properly analyzed the current status and environmental baseline of the right whale. Further, the biological opinion properly analyzed the effects of the project (e.g., noise) on the right whale, along with mitigation measures, and did not ignore the project's additive effects on the right whale's long-term recovery prospects. Finally, BOEM's reliance on the biological opinion did not violate NEPA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. | Case | |
| State v. Arnold | 147 N.C. App. 670 (N.C. App. 2001) | 147 N.C. App. 670 |
Defendant appealed from a conviction of participating as a spectator at an exhibition featuring dog fighting alleging that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and an invalid exercise of police power. The appellate court found the statute to be constitutional. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence, however the appellate court found that there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. |
Case |
| TN - Initiative - Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (2010) | Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (2010) (passed) | The proposed amendment on the 2010 ballot provides for the personal right to hunt and fish subject to state laws, regulations, and existing property rights. The measure also states that "traditional manners and means" may be used to take non-threatened species. It passed with an overwhelming majority of the vote. | Statute | |
| TX - Domestic Violence - § 85.021-.022 Protective Orders | V.T.C.A., Family Code § 85.021 -.022 | TX FAMILY § 85.021 - 022 | In a protective order in Texas, the court may prohibit a party from removing a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal, as defined by Section 121.002, Human Resources Code, from the possession of a person named in the order. Furthermore, in a protective order, the court may prohibit the person found to have committed family violence from harming, threatening, or interfering with the care, custody, or control of a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal that is possessed by or is in the actual or constructive care of a person protected by an order or by a member of the family or household of a person protected by an order. | Statute |
| Ecuador - Cruelty - Criminal Code Excerpt | Excerpt Código Orgánico Integral Penal | Excerpt Ecuador's Criminal Code | This excerpt is from the Criminal Code of Ecuador, Chapter 4, crimes against the environment and nature or "Pacha mama." The crimes against animals are outlined in this chapter. More specifically, Section 2, "Crimes of private action against animals that are part of the urban fauna," articles 249-250. Under the current criminal code, causing injury to an animal is punished with confinement in jail for two to six months. If the act involves cruelty or torture, the punishment is six to twelve months of confinement in jail. Sexual conduct with an animal and sexual exploitation of an animal is also punishable. The death of an animal resulting from sexual conduct is considered an aggravating factor punishable with confinement in jail between one to three years. If the animal dies due to circumstances other than sexual behavior on the animal, the punishment is confinement in jail for six months to one year. Finally, If death is the product of cruel acts, confinement will last one to three years. Dog fighting, abandonment of companion animals, and mistreatment are also prohibited. | Statute |
| In re: PATRICK D. HOCTOR | 54 Agric. Dec. 114 (1995) | 1995 WL 321500 (U.S.D.A.) |
Sanction in each case is to be determined by examining nature of violations in relation to remedial purposes of regulatory statute involved, along with all relevant circumstances, giving appropriate weight to recommendations of administrative officials having responsibility for achieving congressional purpose. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Mitchell | 985 F.2d 1275 (4th Cir. 1993) |
Defendant, a zoologist working for the Department of Interior, was charged in nine count indictment taking and transporting animals in violation of foreign law under the Lacey Act among other violations. Defendant filed motion to dismiss and government filed motion to determine foreign law. The government alleged in Count 8 that in September of 1987, Mitchell transported the hides and horns of a Punjab urial (wild sheep) and a Chinkara gazelle out of Pakistan and into the United States knowing that the animals had been taken, possessed or transported in violation of Pakistani law; the Pakistani Imports and Exports (Control) Act of 1950 and the Punjab Wildlife Act of 1974. The court rejected defendant's reading of the imports and exports law and found it unnecessary to determine the constitutionality of the Punjab Wildlife Act as the Lacey Act impinges on whether defendant violated the portions of the law prohibiting possession of the animals without a permit. |
Case |