Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friedman v. Souther California Permanente Medical Group |
Amicus Curae brief arguing for veganism to be viewed as a religion in wrongful termination case. |
Pleading | ||
| Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser | (2007) 243 ALR 356 | (2007) ATPR 42-189; [2007] FCA 1535 |
The applicants held sheep in a pen pending live export. The respondent broke into that pen and put pork products in their feed rendering them unfit for export to countries whose markets had religious proscriptions against eating pork products. The court found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to 'hindering' as defined in the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and that his action was for the dominant purpose of environmental protection, which included protecting sheep from the conditions suffered during the live export trade. |
Case |
| Am. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. | 60 F.4th 16 (2d Cir. 2023) | In 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“ASPCA”) sued Defendants-Appellees the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) alleging that APHIS followed a "policy or practice" of violating FOIA for failing to comply with requests for records related to the agency response to maintenance of animal welfare standards and licensing of animal dealers/exhibitors. This suit was prompted by APHIS' 2017 decommissioning of two public databases that allow users (including the ASPCA) to access records on commercial breeding facilities including inspection reports and photographs. APHIS contends that there was not a policy or practice that violated FOIA because it was corrected as the result of an intervening act of Congress, specifically, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020. In April of 2020, APHIS moved for summary judgment on the pleadings arguing that ASPCA failed to state a policy or practice claim related to the decommissioned databases and that it makes every effort to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment on the pleadings, finding that while the decommissioning of the databases did indeed impair the ability of the ASPCA to receive prompt FOIA requests, ASPCA did not establish that the court must intervene to correct such a policy or practice and Congress already acted to correct the breakdown through the appropriations bill. On ASPCA's timely appeal here, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 reversed the records access problems. While the ASPCA contended that there were certain records like photographs that were removed from the database, there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that such record requests would not be processed in the future. In essence, this court agreed that the intervening act of Congress by the change in law corrected the action. Thus, a broad order by the court mandating changes to the FOIA process would amount to an unlawful advisory opinion because there is no policy or practice currently occurring by APHIS. The district court's judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| MI - Food animal - § 750.477a Sale of unlabelled horse and dog meat | M.C.L.A. 750.477a | Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.477a (West) | This Michigan statute makes it a misdemeanor for an individual to knowingly sell any horse or dog meat unless it is plainly labelled. | Statute |
| FL - Liens - 713.65. Liens for care and maintenance of animals | West's F.S.A. § 713.50, 65, 655 | FL ST § 713.50, 65, 655 | These Florida laws concern liens for the care and maintenance of animals. The first section declares that the liens mentioned in the chapter include the described personal property under the circumstances mentioned in each section. Section 713.65 then describes that a lien exists in favor of all persons for the "feeding or caring for the horse or other animal of another, including all keepers of livery, sale or feed or feed stables, for feeding or taking care of any horse or other animal put in their charge; upon such horse or other animal." Based on the broad language of "other animal," a lien exists for the care and feeding of all owned animals. | Statute |
| NV - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 202. Crimes Against Public Health and Safety. | N. R. S. 202.500 | NV ST 202.500 | This Nevada statute defines a "dangerous dog," as a dog, that without provocation, on two separate occasions within 18 months, behaved menacingly to a degree that would lead a reasonable person to defend him or herself against substantial bodily harm, when the dog is either off the premises of its owner or keeper or not confined in a cage or pen. A dog then becomes "vicious" when, without being provoked, it killed or inflicted substantial bodily harm upon a human being. If substantial bodily harm results from an attack by a dog known to be vicious, its owner or keeper is guilty of a category D felony. Under the statute, a dog may not be declared dangerous if it attacks as a defensive act against a person who was committing or attempting to commit a crime or who provoked the dog. | Statute |
| CO - Commerce City - Breed - Chapter 4 - ANIMAL CODE. ARTICLE I. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. | COMMERCE CITY, CO., REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 4-1000 - 4-1005 (2011) |
Commerce City defines a pit bull or pit bull terrier as any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.) or United Kennel Club (U.K.C.) for any of the above breeds. Commerce City has banned pit bulls with the exception of pit bulls who were in the city prior to November 2005. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Cantore v. Costantine | --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2023 WL 7560690 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2023) | No. 2022-00077, 622356/19, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05708 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Nov. 15, 2023) | This is an appeal of a personal injury case brought by plaintiff, the mother of the injured child, against the owners of a dog that caused the injury and the owners of the restaurant where the injury occurred. The injury took place at a dog-friendly restaurant both parties were dining at, where the dog owned by defendants bit a three-year-old infant. Plaintiff alleges that the restaurant owners knew of the dog’s vicious propensities but allowed it on the premises, and are liable along with the owners of the dog for the injuries sustained by her child. Defendant restaurant owners contend that they did not know of the dog’s vicious propensities, and that their restaurant requires that dogs be leashed and the dog was leashed at the time of the bite. Plaintiff argues that, under the Hewitt case, a standard negligence analysis should be used rather than an analysis based on knowledge of vicious propensities. Plaintiffs also argue defendant restaurant owners owed a duty of care to their customers, which was breached by allowing a dangerous dog on the premises. The lower court denied defendants motion for summary judgment because there were unresolved issues of fact as to the restaurant defendants’ duty to their patrons and the foreseeability of the injury. This appeal followed. On appeal, the court reversed the order of the lower court because defendants established that they did not have any knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog and that they exercised reasonable care through their signage and policies to protect restaurant patrons from the risk of harm that allowing animals on the premises poses. Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted. | Case |
| WRIGHT v. CLARK | 50 Vt. 130 (1877) | 50 Vt. 130, 28 Am.Rep. 496 (1877) |
Defendant shot plaintiff’s hunting dog, and plaintiff sued for trespass. The dog was shot while in pursuit of a fox. Defendant shot at the fox, but accidentally hit the dog. The court held that, because the shooting was a voluntary act, he was liable for exemplary damages for “intentionally or wantonly” shooting the dog. |
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE WEST BENGAL ANIMAL SLAUGHTER CONTROL ACT, 1950 | 22 of 1950 | The law, specific to the state of West Bengal, regulates the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes, buffalo calves and castrated buffaloes. Persons may not slaughter these animals without a certificate stating that the animal is over fourteen years of age and unfit for work or breeding, or that the animal has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity or incurable disease. Animals under this Act may be slaughtered only in specific places. | Statute |