Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empacadora de Carnes de Fresnillo, S.A. de C.V. v. Curry | 476 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2007) |
The issue on appeal was whether Texas' prohibition of horsemeat for human consumption was preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) or was in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court held that the statute was not preempted or in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. |
Case | |
| Causa Rol C-1533-2021-Chile- Do not publish | Causa Rol 1533-2021 |
Pet shared custody Igor and Bambu |
Case | |
| Decreto 29 | Decreto 29 | This "Decreto" or executive order contains the welfare standards in industrial livestock production and commercialization. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 28, and 30, 2013. It defines industrial production and confinement. Other important aspects include the prohibition of improperly managing animals, and the requirement to minimize pain and suffering during surgical husbandry procedures such as castration, dehorning/disbudding, tail cropping, beak trimming, etc. | Statute | |
| Jackson v. Mateus | 70 P.3d 78 (Utah 2003) | Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant after she was bitten by the defendant’s cat and required medical attention as a result of the bite. Plaintiff found the defendant’s cat on her property and mistakenly started petting the cat, thinking that it was one of her own cats. As plaintiff was petting the cat, it bit her causing her injury. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against defendant for not restraining the cat. The court held in favor of the defendant because the court found that this incident was not foreseeable and because it was not foreseeable, the defendant did not owe a duty to restrain the animal under the common law, municipal law, or state law. | Case | |
| AZ - Municipalities - Dog Regulations | A.R.S. § 9-240 | AZ ST § 9-240 | This Arizona statute allows common councils to regulate dogs running at large. | Statute |
| CT - Leash - Control of dogs in proximity to guide dogs. | C. G. S. A. § 22-364b | CT ST § 22-364b | This Connecticut law provides that the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain and control such dog on a leash when such dog is not on the property of its owner or keeper and is in proximity to a person with a disability accompanied by a service animal, provided such service animal is readily identifiable as a service animal, is in the direct custody of such person and is licensed. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall have committed an infraction. If an owner or keeper of a dog violates the provisions of this section and, as a result of such violation, such dog attacks and injures the service animal, such owner or keeper shall be liable for any damage done, including veterinary care, replacement of the service animal, and attorney fees. | Statute |
| UK - Welfare - Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1964 | 1964 c. 39 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. An Act to amend the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954. |
Statute | |
| Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC | 90 So.3d 915 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) | 2012 WL 2327814 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) |
While walking his dog one evening, the plaintiff's husband was attacked by fire ants. In an attempt to remove the ants off his person, the plaintiff's husband collapsed in the shower. Two days later, he died. As a representative for her husband's estate and in her own capacity, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against her landlord. After the trial court granted the landlord's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed. Affirming the lower court's decision, the appeals court reasoned that since the landlord did not harbor, possess, or introduce the fire ants onto the premises, the landlord owed no duty to the plaintiff. |
Case |
| Wilkins v. Daniels | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 6644465 (S.D.Ohio, 2012) |
Various owners of exotic and wild animals filed a lawsuit in order to obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction against the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director, David Daniels. The owners of the exotic and wild animals argued the Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act, which the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director were trying to enforce, was unconstitutional. The district court denied the owners’ motion for obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction reasoning that the exceptions to the Act’s ban on owning wild and exotic animals does not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, that the legislature had a legitimate purpose so as to not violate procedural due process with regards to micro-chipping wild and exotic animals, and that the Act did not constitute an unconstitutional takings. Significantly, the court recognized that owners of wild and exotic animals have a limited or qualified property interest in said animals. |
Case | |
| Cramer v. Harris | 591 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2015) | Plaintiff William Cramer filed this lawsuit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 2, which requires California egg farmers to house egg laying hens in less restrictive enclosures. Plaintiff argued that, because Proposition 2 did not specify a minimum cage size for egg laying hens, a reasonable person could not discern whether the enclosures being used were compliant with Proposition 2 and that the law is void for vagueness as a result. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the court reasoned that Proposition 2 did not need to specify a minimum amount of space per bird, and that the space requirements mandating that each hen be able to extend its limbs fully and turn around freely can be discerned using objective criteria. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the lawsuit. | Case |