Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Snyder v. Bio-Lab, Inc. | 405 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y.Sup.,1978) | 94 Misc.2d 816 (N.Y.Sup.,1978) |
Plaintiffs sought damages after having to slaughter dairy cows that were injured by defendant’s defective machine. The Court held that plaintiffs could recover 1) the fair market value less salvage value of the cows, 2) the loss of profit during the period after the incident when cows of comparable quality became available on the market, and 3) the calculable loss in milk production caused by the incident's negative impact on the milk production level of the remaining cows. |
Case |
| VT - Racing - § 2153. Prohibition on dog and horse race betting | 13 V.S.A. § 2153 | This Vermont law prohibits a person from holding, conducting, operating, or simulcasting a pari-mutuel dog race or pari-mutuel horse race for public exhibition. | Statute | |
| Animal Law Review Volume 9 |
Animal Law Volume 9 (2003)REMARKS |
Policy | ||
| Lawton v. Steele | 14 S.Ct. 499 (1894) | 152 U.S. 133 (1894) |
Plaintiffs sued defendant fish and game protectors to recover damages for the loss of their seized fishing nets. At issue was the New York statute that prohibited fishing in the area where plaintiffs were fishing and proscribed seizure of fishing gear used in violation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court held that such a statute is a constitutional exercise of state police power, as the protection of fish and game has always been within the proper domain of police power. Further, the court found the legislature acted properly in providing a seizure component to the statute to control what it termed a "public nuisance." |
Case |
| AL - Ecoterrorism - Article 6A. Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-150 - 158 | AL ST § 13A-11-150 to 158 | This article is known as the Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. Under the Act, it is unlawful for any person to intentionally release, steal, destroy, or otherwise cause loss of any animal or crop from an animal or crop facility without the consent of the owner. Other illegal actions include vandalizing obtaining access by false pretenses for the purpose of performing acts not authorized by the facility, and possession of records obtained by theft or deception without authorization of the facility. Violation results in a Class C felony if the loss $250 or more or a Class A misdemeanor if the loss is less $250. | Statute |
| Whiteaker v. City of Southgate | 651 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2023) | 2023 WL 317457 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023) | The plaintiff (“Whiteaker”) filed this action against Defendant, the City of Southgate, Michigan for violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”). Specifically, Whiteaker contends that the City violated the FHA by denying Whiteaker's request for an exemption from City Ordinance 610.13, which prohibits City residents from maintaining chickens (or other typical farm animals) on their property. The events underlying this action began after Whiteaker moved to Southgate in early March 2021. On March 24, 2021, Whiteaker was issued a citation by the City for a violation of Ordinance 610.13. Whiteaker appeared in district court to defend himself, claiming he had a right to keep the chickens under Michigan's Right to Farm Act. However, it turned out the Right to Farm law was inapplicable because Whiteaker's chicken coop was within 250 feet of a dwelling. Thus, Whiteaker was issued a second citation in May and was denied a permit to keep the chickens by the city. Since Whiteaker was a longtime sufferer of depression and anxiety, he sought a waiver from the ordinance as a reasonable accommodation for his disability and presented a letter from his mental health provider as support. Again, his request was denied by the City. In the instant motion for summary judgement by the City, the court examined the "reasonableness" of Whiteaker's request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The court found that the balancing test required under the FHA, to wit, weighing Whiteaker's disability-related need to keep the chickens as a source of comfort and support against the City's claims that the chickens pose a threat to public health, is a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the court observed that the City's citation of documentation from the CDC only lists the "potential dangers" chickens can pose to public health without sufficient evidence to supports its claim that the chickens will burden the City financially and administratively. In contrast, Whiteaker claims a disability and has provided evidence of his disability. Likewise, as to the remaining elements of necessity and equal opportunity for a reasonable accommodation claim, the court again cites Whiteaker's evidentiary support for his claim of disability and need for the chickens to alleviate those symptoms against the fact the City has not presented any testimony, affidavits, or "evidence of any kind" to support its claim. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. | Case |
| Robert Zauper, Plaintiff v. Michael Lababit and Jane Doe Lababit, and the marital community comprised thereof; and Does 1-10, De |
This Kitsap County, Washington judgment summary, findings of fact, and conclusions of law found defendants liable for five claims including simple negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, public nuisance, and gross negligence. In the award of damages, plaintiff received a total judgment in the amount of $75,501.09, which included $50,000 for intrinsic value and $25,000 for emotional distress. |
Pleading | ||
| Com. v. Hackenberger | 836 A.2d 2 (Pa.2003) | 575 Pa. 197 (2003) |
Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 6 months to 2 years jail following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of cruelty to animals resulting from his shooting of a loose dog more than five times. On appeal, appellant contends that the use of a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement provision does not apply to a conviction for cruelty to animals since the purpose is to punish only those offenses where the defendant has used a deadly weapon against
persons.
The Commonwealth countered that the purpose behind the provision is immaterial because the plain language applies to any offense where the defendant has used a deadly weapon to
commit the crime, save for those listed crimes where possession is an element of the offense. This Court agreed with the Commonwealth and held that the trial court was not prohibited from applying the deadly weapon sentencing enhancement to defendant's conviction for cruelty to animals.
|
Case |
| U.S. v. 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, More or Less | 687 F.Supp. 525 (W.D. Wash. 1987) |
Defendants were charged with exporting salmon from Taiwan in violation of Taiwanese regulations. The regulations and public announcement of the Taiwan Board of Foreign Trade restricting the export of salmon from Taiwan constituted "foreign law" as that term is used in the Lacey Act, despite the fact this was embodied in regulation, not statute. Moreover, this provision of the Lacey Act was not void for vagueness for failing to expressly state that the term "foreign law" encompassed both foreign statutes and regulations. |
Case | |
| Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier | 303 P.3d 794 (Mont. 2013) | 2013 MT 166, 2013 MT 166, 370 Mont. 410, 2013 WL 3053594 |
Upon the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’s decision to relocate a brucellosis-free herd of bison out of Yellowstone National Park and into tribal lands, plaintiffs sought an injunction to halt this movement until the department complied with MCA § 87-1-216. The District Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Upon appeal by defendants and defendant intervenors, however, the Supreme Court of Montana held that MCA § 87-1-216 did not apply and that the District Court relied on erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under MCA § 27-19-201(2). The case was therefore reversed, the preliminary injunction vacated and the case was remanded back to the District Court.
|
Case |