Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colleen Harrington v. David Hovanec, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive | This California complaint for damages raises five causes of action: (1) gross negligence; (2) trespass to chattel; (3) conversion; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) violation of California Civil Code Section 3340 (related to damage to animals as property). The lawsuit arose from the negligent and/or intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant in May of 2004. According to the complaint, plaintiff's dog was shot at least thirteen times by defendant's two different guns. | Pleading | ||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar | 776 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Mont., 2011) | 2011 WL 1345670 (D.Mont.) |
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's 2009 Final Rule unlawfully delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Rule was vacated. The Court held that it had no authority to decide that it would be more equitable to ignore Congress' instruction on how an endangered species must be protected so that the wolves could be taken under the states' management plans. In addition, the Court held that it was inappropriate for the Court to approve a settlement at the expense of the Non–Settling Litigants' legal interests. |
Case |
| Placey v. Placey | 51 So.3d 374 (Ala. Civ. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 2342397 (Ala. Civ. App.) |
The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest. |
Case |
| In the MATTER OF the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR 2021-2022 #16 | 489 P.3d 1217 (Colo. 2021) | Opponents of an initiative in Colorado petitioned for a review of the Ballot Title Setting Board's decisions regarding the initiative's title, ballot title, and submission clause. The initiative proposed to amend the state's criminal animal cruelty statutes by ending certain exemptions for livestock, creating a safe harbor for their slaughter with certain conditions, and expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal." The opponents alleged that the initiative violated the single subject requirement by covering multiple subjects. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the central focus of the initiative was to extend animal cruelty statutes to cover livestock. The initiative's safe harbor provision for the slaughter of livestock did not violate the single subject rule. The initiative's expansion of the definition of "sexual act with an animal" violated the single subject rule. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. | Case | |
| United States Humane Society v. Ed Schafer Secretary US Department of Agriculture | This complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenges a USDA regulation that fails to prohibit all non-ambulatory ("downed") cattle - those too injured or sick to stand and walk - from being slaughtered for human consumption, even though Defendants have been telling the public for years that all such animals are in fact excluded from the human food supply. Specifically, plaintiff seeks a declaration that the USDA's final rule is arbitrary and capricious; seeks to remand the final rule for new rulemaking to close the downed cattle loophole; and seeks to preliminary and permanently enjoin defendants from allowing downed cattle to be slaughtered for human consumption. | Pleading | ||
| Rhode Island Public Laws 1857-1872: Chapter 912: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | 1872 R.I. Pub. Laws 912 | A collection of the laws concerning cruelty to animals from Rhode Island for the years 1857-1872. The act covers such topics as bird fighting, cruelty to animals, enforcement of the act, and procedural issues concerning the act. | Statute | |
| CO - Denver - Breed - Sec. 8-55. Pit bulls prohibited. | Sec. 8.55 |
This Denver, Colorado ordinance provides that it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull. A pit bull is defined broadly as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or 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 which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds." [emphasis added] A person who applied for and received a special pit bull license before August 7, 1989 (date of the publication of the ordinance) and who maintains the pit bull in compliance with the requirements of the ordinance may keep a pit bull. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Slavin v. United States | 2005 WL 742707 (8th Cir. 2005) |
An Arkansas woman who raises gamefowl brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act which prohibits the interstate transportation of birds for the purposes of fighting. The trial court dismissed the woman's claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding the statute is not vague. |
Case | |
| Colucci v. Colucci | 234 A.3d 1226 (Me. 2020) | 2020 ME 75 , 2020 WL 2764560 | This Maine case is an appeal of a divorce proceeding where one party argues the court erred in awarding the parties' dogs to another. In 2017, Suan Colucci filed a complaint for divorce against her husband, Stephen Colucci. In 2019, the court entered a judgment granting the divorce and awarded both dogs “set aside to [Susan] as her exclusive property.” On appeal by Stephen, this court found that undisputed evidence established that "Louise" the dog was acquired five years before marriage, and thus, was nonmarital property. Because no evidence was presented to which of the parties actually acquired Louise in 2010, the judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings to determine ownership of Louise. | Case |
| CA - Dog Park - § 831.7.5. Liability of public entity owning or operating a dog park; actions of a dog in the dog park | West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 831.7.5 | This law in the Government Code states that a public entity that owns or operates a dog park shall not be held liable for injury or death of a person or pet resulting solely from the actions of a dog in the dog park. | Statute |