Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - Canada Federal Statutes. Criminal Code. Part VIII -- Offences Against the Person and Reputation. Criminal Negligence. | R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 219 - 221 | The statutory definition of criminal negligence involves doing any act or omitting to do a legal duty that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. In alleged criminal cases, it is the State rather than the attack victim who lays the charges. | Statute | ||
| Giaconia v. Delaware County Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4442632 (E.D.Pa.) |
Plaintiff brought various claims against Defendants after Plaintiff’s cat was euthanized prior to the standard 72 hour waiting period. On Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania found that Defendants were not acting under color of law. Because any and all claims for which the Court had original jurisdiction were being dismissed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims. |
Case | ||
| Brown v. Muhlenberg Tp. | 269 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2001) |
Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet. |
Case | ||
| VT - Endangered wildlife - Chapter 124. Trade in Covered Animal Parts or Products | 10 V.S.A. § 5501 - 5508 | VT ST T. 10 § 5501 - 5508 | This Vermont chapter, enacted in 2022, relates to the trade in certain animal products. Under the law, a person shall not purchase, sell, offer for sale, or possess with intent to sell any item that the person knows or should know is a covered animal part or product. A covered animal part includes certain big cat species, elephants, giraffes, hippopotamuses, mammoths, mastodons, pangolins, endangered rays, rhinoceroses, sea turtles, endangered sharks, certain whales, and certain ape species. Exceptions exist for activities authorized under federal law, parts with "antique status" as defined, among others. For a first offense, a person shall be assessed an administrative penalty of not more than $1,000.00 nor less than $400.00. | Statute | |
| Archer v. State | 309 So. 3d 287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) | 2020 WL 7409970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2020) | Defendant Tim Archer pleaded no contest to felony animal cruelty in Florida. Archer's dog Ponce apparently made a mess in Archer's house and, when Archer "disciplined" Ponce, the dog bit him, leading to Archer violently beating and stabbing the dog to death. Public outcry over mild punishment in the state for heinous acts of animal abuse led to "Ponce's Law," which enhanced penalties (although it did not retroactively apply to Archer). As a condition of Archer's plea agreement, both parties stipulated to a restriction on future ownership of animals as part of Archer's probation. On appeal here, Archer argues that the trial court erred in imposing these special conditions of probation. With regard to special condition 34 and 35, which prohibits him from owning any animal for the duration of his life and prohibits him from residing with anyone who owns a pet, Archer seeks clarification whether this prohibits him from residing with his ex-wife and children who own two cats, respectively. The court found that condition 35 would only be in effect for his three-year probationary term. Additionally, the court found condition 34 that imposes a lifetime ban on ownership exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction regardless of the open-ended language of Ponce's law. The animal restriction is not "a license to exceed the general rule that prohibits a court from imposing a probationary term beyond the statutorily permissible term, which in this case is five years." The case was remanded to the trial court to modify the conditions of probation to be coextensive with the probationary term. | Case | |
| European Union - Farming - Directive for Protection of Animals | Official Journal L 221 , 08/08/1998 P. 0023 - 0027 | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/58/EC | This Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes. | Administrative | |
| Protocol of Amendment to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes | The following are the additional protocol to the European Convention on Farm Animals. The definition of "intensive stock farming systems" has been elaborated on. Additions concerning the confines of artificial breeding and the feeding of harmful things to animals through food or drink are also included. | Treaty | |||
| AL - Dog Fighting - Activities relating to fighting of dogs prohibited; violations; confiscation; | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-29 | AL ST § 3-1-29 | This Alabama statute constitutes the state's dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a class C felony for any person to own, possess, keep or train any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog; for amusement or gain, to cause any dog to fight with another dog, or cause any dogs to injure each other; or to permit any of the above acts. The law also makes it a class C felony to knowingly be present or be a spectator at dogfights. | Statute | |
| Animal Law Volume 13 Part 2 Index |
|
Policy | |||
| Clyncke v. Waneka | 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007) | 2007 WL 570412 (Colo.) |
In this Colorado case, an inexperienced horse rider who was injured in fall from horse during a horse roundup, brought an action under the Colorado Equine Activities Statute against the owners of riding stable. The lower court, after a jury trial, entered a judgment for the stable owners. On appeal at the Supreme Court, the Court found that the Equine Statute places a two-pronged duty on sponsors; a sponsor is liable when he or she fails to make reasonable efforts to determine either a participant's ability to engage in the equine activity or a participant's ability to manage a particular horse. Here, a new trial was in order because the result may have been different if court had properly instructed the jury regarding the exception from civil liability for the sponsor. |
Case |