Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal materials-PETA's investigation Caucaseco Research Center- materials - can this be published but hidden? I just need the links to the docs | Relevant legal documents concerning PETA's investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center CAUCASECO, in Cali, Colombia. | Policy | |||
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | Wash. Admin. Code 16-54-010 - 180 | WAC 16-54-010 to 180 | This set of regulations is the Washington Department of Agriculture's import requirements for various types of domestic, companion, wild, and exotic animals. | Administrative | |
| Honeycutt v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. | 890 So.2d 756 (2nd Cir. 2004) |
A driver hit a cow standing in the road and the driver brought suit against the cow's owner and the owner's insurance agency. The trial court held in favor of the driver and the Court of Appeals affirmed based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. |
Case | ||
| Allen v. Cox | 942 A.2d 296 (Conn. 2008) | 285 Conn. 603 (2008) |
The plaintiff (Allen) brought this action against the defendants (Jessica Cox and Daniel Cox) alleging that she was injured by the defendants' cat after the defendants negligently allowed the cat to roam free. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the defendants. Relying mainly on the Restatement (Second), this court held that when a cat has a propensity to attack other cats, knowledge of that propensity may render the owner liable for injuries to people that foreseeably result from such behavior. |
Case | |
| MT - Dog - Dogs Act | Act XXI of 1985, Amended by VII of 1990 |
The Dogs Act was originally enacted in 1985. It provides that a person keeping a dog over the age of six months must obtain a licence for the dog. If a person does not have a licence for the dog, he or she shall be guilty of a criminal offence and will be liable to the punishment of a fine ( ammenda ) of five liri. |
Statute | ||
| Proyecto Amparo en revisión 630, 2017 | Proyecto Amparo en revisión 630, 2017 | This is a draft of a withdrawn "Amparo" decision, but it is relevant as it highlights the connection between the human right to a healthy environment and the duty to protect animals. In particular, it sheds light on how this right influences the legal assessment of bullfighting's legality. In this case, plaintiff, Promociones y Espectáculos Zapaliname, S.A. de C.V., a company specializing in organizing bullfighting events, filed a legal action against various governmental entities and individuals in the state of Coahuila, in Mexico. The plaintiff challenged the 2015 amendment to Coahuila's animal protection law, which prohibited bullfighting and similar practices, on the grounds that it violated their rights to work, property, and cultural expression. The lower court dismissed the case regarding Article 20, Section XV of the animal protection law due to a lack of legal interest and because these provisions were not applicable to the case. The court also rejected the Amparo concerning Article 20, Section XIV of the same law. The case was appealed and eventually transferred to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, after hearing the case de novo, upheld the constitutionality of Article 20, Section XIV of Coahuila's animal protection law. The judge emphasized that the right to a healthy environment includes the protection of animals as an element of the environment, moving away from viewing animals purely as property. The court highlighted the presence of various laws recognizing the need for humane treatment of animals and prohibiting cruelty, even though Mexico lacks a national anti-cruelty law. This legal framework justified the ban on bullfighting and supported the broader legislative objective of protecting and treating animals with dignity. The court argued that allowing bullfighting caused suffering and death for the sake of entertainment, which was detrimental to the societal interest of protecting the environment and species conservation, as established in Article 4 of the Constitution. It also stressed the importance of governments adopting gradual measures to protect animals, and regressing on these measures would be undesirable. | Case | ||
| Banks v. Adair | 251 S.E.2d 88 (Ga.App., 1978) | 148 Ga.App. 254 (Ga.App., 1978) |
In this Georgia dog bite case, plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict for the defendant. The Court of Appeals held that the verdict was properly directed for defendant where there was no evidence that established the defendant's knowledge of his dog's propensity to bite or injure humans.
|
Case | |
| Agreement APHIS v. FEI | This agreement was entered into by APHIS and Feld Entertainment, Inc. (FEI). FEI is an exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act and was issued non-compliance reports after numerous inspections. In this agreement, FEI paid $270,000 to the US Treasurer and had to develop and implement annual training to all of its personnel who worked with animals. The agreement also contains provisions that APHIS would not take action against FEI if FEI followed the agreement. | Pleading | |||
| U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West | 594 F.3d 694 (C.A. 9 (Ariz.), 2010) | 2010 WL 376093 (C.A.9 (Ariz.)) |
The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act. In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false. In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases. However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case. This case was amended and superseded by US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West , 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010). |
Case | |
| New York Consolidated Laws 1938: Sections 180-196 | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 180-196 (Consol. 1938) | Article 16, entitled "Animals", concerns New York's Law about the treatment of animals from 1938. The act covers such topics as poisoning of animals to abandoning diseased or injured animals. In addition, the act provides definitions in section 180. | Statute |