Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Vol 6 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. VI (2010)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | ||
| Perkins v. Hattery | 155 N.E.2d 73 (Ohio App. 1958) | 106 Ohio App. 361 |
This Ohio case examined the propriety of a county dog warden killing a dog that had killed a sheep nine hours before such seizure. The Court of Appeals held that dog warden was not authorized to destroy or otherwise dispose of a duly licensed dog found and seized by such warden upon the premises of its owner following a complaint made to the warden by the owner of sheep that the dog had killed certain of his sheep approximately nine hours before such seizure. |
Case |
| Cardenas v. Swanson | 531 P.3d 917 (Wyo., 2023) | 2023 WY 67, 2023 WL 4344196 (Wyo. July 5, 2023) | The Cardenas family (Appellants) owned three St. Bernard dogs. Appellants lived on a home adjacent to large tracts of state land, and would allow the dogs to roam the land unleashed, but the dogs would return each night. One afternoon, the dogs were let outside to run, but one dog did not return. Appellants found the dog caught in a snare, where it died from a broken neck. Appellants attempted to free the dog from the snare, and one of the Cardenas children was injured in the process. While appellants were attempting to free their dog from the snare, the other two dogs were also caught in snares, and died from their injuries. Appellants filed suit against the trapper who set the snares (Appellee), asserting claims of negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, violation of statutes, infliction of emotional distress, and civil rights violations. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted and denied in part, finding that appellee’s conduct was not willful and wanton and that appellants could not recover emotional damages for the loss of the dogs. On appeal, the court considered: (1) whether the members of the Cardenas family can recover damages for emotional injuries for the loss of their dogs, and (2) whether this court should allow the recovery of emotional distress damages for the loss of a pet. The court held that (1) emotional injuries for the loss of property are not recoverable, under this court’s precedent emotional damages are only recoverable for certain limited situations. Dogs are considered personal property under state law, and damage to personal property is not one of the situations in which emotional damages are recoverable. Next, the court held that (2) it would not create a precedent to allow people to recover emotional distress damages when animate personal property is harmed, as that change would be best suited for the legislature to make. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the case. | Case |
| R v. Shand | R. v. Shand, 2007 ONCJ 317 | In R v Shand 2007 ONCJ 317 (CanLII), the court examined the necessary elements required to established the “willful” mens rea component present in Canadian Federal Criminal Statute s. 429. The accused was charged with three counts of animal cruelty contrary to s.446 of the Criminal Code in relation to a dog in her care. The court found that on two of the counts that the accused was had acted "wilfully" because she was either "reckless or indifferent as to her dog's condition." | Case | |
| Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. | 860 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (W.D. Wash. 2012) rev'd, 708 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) and rev'd, 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013) | The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission. | Case | |
| WA - Research - 19.86.145. Penalties--Animals used in biomedical research | West's RCWA 19.86.145 | WA ST 19.86.145 | This law provides that any violation of RCW 9.08.070 - 9.08.078 (relating to concealing or taking a pet animal with the intent to deprive or defraud the owner) or RCW 16.52.220 (relating to transfer of mammals other than rats or mice for use in research) constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice. Research institutions that violate this provision face only monetary penalties not to exceed $2,500. | Statute |
| WI - South Milwaukee - Vicious dog - § 23.20 REGULATING VICIOUS DOGS. | SOUTH MILWAUKEE, WI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 23.20 | In 2017, the City of South Milwaukee amended its section on "vicious dogs" to remove the prohibition on the keeping of dogs described as "pit bull dogs." This ban was repealed on June 27, 2017. | Local Ordinance | |
| Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service | [2003] NSWSC 457 |
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting. |
Case | |
| DE - Domestic Violence - § 1045. Relief available; duration of orders, modification and termination | 10 Del.C. § 1045 | DE ST TI 10 § 1045 | Delaware amended its law on protection orders in domestic violence situations to include protection of pets in 2023. Per subsection (a)(12), a court may "[g]rant the petitioner the exclusive care, custody, or control of any companion animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or a minor child residing in the residence or household of the petitioner or respondent and order the respondent to stay away from the companion animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, harming, or otherwise disposing of the companion animal." | Statute |
| Sample Post |
Sample Post of Dog Map
|
Policy |
