Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 | 1973 c. 60 |
This Act establishes a regime of local authority licensing and inspection of dog breeding establishments. |
Statute | |
| Mitchell v. State | 118 So.3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) | 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1641, 2013 WL 3927676 |
The defendant in this case was convicted of animal cruelty for injuries his dog sustained after his dog bit him. Upon appeal, the court found that the prosecutor had erred by framing the argument in a manner that improperly shifted the burden of proof from whether the defendant had intentionally and maliciously inflicted injuries on the dog to whether the State's witnesses were lying. Since the court found this shift in burden was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction. |
Case |
| Mostek v. Genesee County Animal Control | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 683430 (E.D., Mich. 2012) |
Defendant officer removed a gravely-ill cat that needed veterinary care from Plaintiff's backyard. Plaintiff sued alleging Fourth Amendment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff disclaimed ownership of the cat, thus her property rights were not violated by the seizure. Officer was shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, because animal control officers may enter property and remove animals that appear to be in danger. |
Case | |
| Loy v. Kenney | 85 Cal. App. 5th 403, 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 (2022), reh'g denied (Dec. 2, 2022) | The background of the case involves buyers who sued alleged sellers of dogs for falsely advertising their pets as healthy when they were actually sick and died soon after. The buyers claimed that this violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Superior Court in Los Angeles County granted the buyers' motion for a preliminary injunction, which prevented the sellers from selling or advertising dogs. However, the sellers appealed this decision. The sellers' main issue at the the Court of Appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim that the buyers purchased the puppies in question from the sellers. The court found relying on the buyers' declarations to establish the sellers' identities did not result in any harm. In addition, the buyers had provided adequate evidence to support their allegations that the puppies had been dyed brown. The court found the objections raised by the sellers regarding the evidentiary foundations for allegations relating to the dogs' ages, vaccinations, and causes of death were not relevant to the preliminary injunction. Substantial evidence existed to suggest that the buyers would likely succeed in their claim against the sellers and the balance of harms favored granting the preliminary injunction. Lastly, the sellers' persistence in their routine indicated that the public interest favored the grant of the preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. | Case | |
| Brazil - Animal weflare - PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 (in portuguese) | PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 | Institui o Código Federal de Bem-Estar Animal, estabelecendo diretrizes e normas para a garantia de atendimento aos princípios de bem-estar animal nas atividades de controle animal, experimentação animal e produção animal, através da otimização dos processos de desenvolvimento econômico e científico, com o aprimoramento das técnicas e investimentos que garantam maior eficiência, lucratividade e operacionalidade, controle e prevenção sanitário-ambientais, capacitação e preservação das condições de bem-estar do trabalhador, bem como o atendimento à legislação e recomendações nacionais e internacionais. | Statute | |
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.9. Cruelty to animals; persons convicted of specified misdemeanor and felony | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.9 | CA PENAL § 597.9 | Under this California law, any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of certain animal cruelty laws (Section 597, or Section 597a, 597b, 597h, 597j, 597s, or 597.1) and who, within five years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). Additionally, any person who has been convicted of a felony violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 597, or Section 597b or 597.5, and who, within 10 years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). | Statute |
| AU - Farming - Stock Act 1915 (QLD) | Stock Act 1915 |
The Stock Act governs the treatment and welfare of stock or farm animals in Queensland. The purpose of the Act is to promote responsible animal care and protection, to provide standards for animal care and use, to protect industry in the event of a disease outbreak.
|
Statute | |
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.C.C., 2008) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. |
Case | |
| Ing v. American Airlines | 2007 WL 420249 (N.D. Cal. 2007) |
A man shipped his dog on an American Airlines airplane, and the dog died shortly after landing. The court found that the contract signed prior to take-off limited the liability of the airline. However, the airline could be liable because after landing, the man had asked for his dog back, to give it veterinary care, but the airline took more than four hours to give it back. Also, the airline could be liable if the plane temperature had been higher than for which the contract called. |
Case | |
| IN - Cruelty - Section 428 Indian Penal Code 860 | 45 of 1860 | The provision criminalizes killing, maiming, or 'rendering useless' any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees and upwards. | Statute |