Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASSOCIACAO SANTUARIO DE ELEFANTES BRASIL | 1001993-45.2019.8.11.0024 | This case from Brazil concerns the elephant named "Ramba." Ramba is a former circus elephant who spent more than 30 years at circuses in Chile and Argentina. On October 18, 2019, she arrived at Santuário de Elefantes do Brasil (Brazil Elephants Sanctuary) after a 73 hour trip all the way from Chile. Before Ramba was transferred, Judge Leonísio Salles de Abreu Junior, from the 1st Civil Court at Chapada dos Guimarães, the region where the sanctuary is located in Mato Grosso , Brazil, made a ruling changing her status from a mere "good." The judge prohibited the local Government from charging the sanctuary R$ 50.000 (approximately US $ 13.00) in a tax on movement of goods finding that Ramba is not a thing, and is not a subject to importation good tax. According to an article at https://www.ambientesecom.net/2019/10/24/groundbreaking-decision-of-brazilian-judge-for-captive-elephant, the judge said further, "Her position, far from being a commodity (as she was in the life of exploitation to what she was submitted to by her former owners), is now that of a guest, who seeks for a new destination on the margins of what human evil has already caused her." Attached case is in Portuguese. | Case | ||||||||
| WI - Chickens, transport - 134.52. Shipment of chickens | W. S. A. 134.52 | WI ST 134.52 | This Wisconsin statute requires that poultry not be overcrowded and the shipping container must be at least 13 inches in high on the inside and covered at the top in a way that prevents the chickens from getting caught in the top. | Statute | |||||||
| PA - Ordinances - § 23144. To tax and destroy dogs | 53 P.S. § 23144 | PS ST 53 P.S. § 23144 | This briefly worded Pennsylvania statute presumably gives municipalities the authority "[t]o regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs found at large contrary to any ordinance." | Statute | |||||||
| Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. | 604 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.Mass.,2009) | 2009 WL 678744 (D.Mass.) |
The plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. and Wyeth Corporation, seeking economic damages suffered from the purchase and injection of her dog with ProHeart® 6 to prevent heartworm. The complaint alleged products liability/failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of state deceptive business practices, among others. In 2004, defendants recalled ProHeart® 6 in response to a request by FDA due to reported adverse reactions. This Court found that Massachusetts law follows the traditional “economic loss rule,” where such losses are not recoverable in in tort and strict liability actions where there has been no personal injury or property damage. Here, the plaintiff was barred from recovering because she has not alleged any personal injury or property damage under her products liability claim. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendants' deceptive act caused some injury and compsensable loss. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. |
Case | |||||||
| RSPCA v O'Loughlan | [2007] SASC 113 |
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. |
Case | ||||||||
| State v. Dan | 20 P.3d 829 (Or. 2001) | 172 Or.App. 645 (Or. 2001) |
This is an appeal of a circuit court decision in an aggravated animal abuse case. A defendant was convicted in circuit court of aggravated animal abuse and other charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's testimony that he loved his children more than the dog he shot was not evidence of his character, thus the evidence offered by the state in rebuttal (that the defendant assaulted his spouse) was not admissible and not harmless error by the trial court. |
Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| VA - Restaurants, animals - 2 VAC 5-585-3310. Prohibiting animals. | 2 VA ADC 5-585-3310 | 2 VAC 5-585-3310 | This Virginia regulation states that dogs may be allowed in outdoor dining areas if: (1) the outdoor dining area is not enclosed with floor-to-ceiling walls; (2) there is a separate entrance; (3) there is a sign at the main entrance stating that dogs are allowed in the outdoor dining area that is easily observable by the public; (3) food and water provided to dogs is served using equipment not used for human food service or is put in single-use receptacles; (4) dogs are not allowed to sit on chairs, benches, seats, or tables; (5) dogs are kept on a leash or within a pet carrier and under the control of adults at all times; (6) the establishment provides a means for picking up dog messes; and (7) there is a sign outlining some of these requirements observable to the public. | Administrative | |||||||
| TX - Hunting - § 62.0125. Harassment of Hunters, Trappers, and Fishermen | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0125 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0125 | This law represents Texas' hunter harassment law, also known as the Sportsman's Rights Act. Under the section, a person may not intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife, or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting lawful hunting. Violation is a Class B misdemeanor. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States. | Statute | |||||||
| NV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | N. R. S. 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487; N.R.S. 201.455 | NV ST 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487 | This comprehensive section comprises the Nevada anti-cruelty statutes. The section first empowers private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and outlines their powers and responsibilities, including the power to arrest. Under this section, "animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature. Animal cruelty, as described in Section 574.100, prohibits the overdriving, overloading, torture, cruel beating or unjustifiable injuring, maiming, mutilation or killing of an animal, as well as the deprivation of necessary sustenance, food or drink. The first offense under this section is a misdemeanor with enhancement to a felony for a third or subsequent convictions. Animals fighting is also prohibited under the section, with enhanced sentences for subsequent convictions. Other specific crimes include mistreatment of dogs, abandonment of animals, poisoning (although the section does not prohibit the destruction of "noxious animals"), and basic requirements for the care of dogs and cats kept in kennels or sold by pounds or pet shops. | Statute |