Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re: MARILYN SHEPHERD | 57 Agric. Dec. 242 (1998) | 1998 WL 385884 (U.S.D.A.) | Recommendations of administrative officials charged with responsibility for achieving congressional purpose of Animal Welfare Act are highly relevant to any sanction to be imposed and are entitled to great weight in view of experience gained by administrative officials during their day-to-day supervision of regulated industry; however, recommendation of administrative officials as to sanction is not controlling, and in appropriate circumstances, sanction imposed may be considerably less, or different, than that recommended by administrative officials. | Case |
| MN - Domestic Violence - 518B.01. Chapter 518B. Domestic Abuse. | M. S. A. § 518B.01 | MN ST § 518B.01 | This law reflects Minnesota's provision for restraining orders in cases of domestic abuse. An amendment in 2010 concerns the care and keeping of a companion animal owed by either petitioner or respondent, and has a provision to allow the court to prevent harm to such animal. As stated in the law in subsection 6(a)(14) and (15), the court may provide relief that includes an order to "(14) direct the care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal owned, possessed, or kept by the petitioner or respondent or a child of the petitioner or respondent; and (15) direct the respondent to refrain from physically abusing or injuring any pet or companion animal, without legal justification, known to be owned, possessed, kept, or held by either party or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either party as an indirect means of intentionally threatening the safety of such person." | Statute |
| KY - Impound - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. | KRS § 258.215 | KY ST § 258.215 | This Kentucky statute provides that peace officers, dog wardens, or animal control officers shall seize and impound any dog which does not bear a proper license tag or other legible identification which is found running at large. Interestingly, if an officer after diligent effort to do so, should fail to seize the dog, it is his or her duty to destroy the dog by any reasonable and humane means. The statute specifically exempts actively engaged hunting dogs from the "loose dog" prohibition. | Statute |
| Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy and Kiko v. | 31 N.Y.3d 1054, 100 N.E.3d 846 (2018) | 2018 WL 2107087 (Mem), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 03309 | The petitioner, Nonhuman Rights Project brought this appeal on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, who are two captive chimpanzees. The chimpanzees had been confined by their owners in small cages within a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area, respectively. Petitioner sought leave to appeal from an order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed two judgments of the Supreme Court declining to sign orders to show cause to grant the chimpanzees habeas relief. The lower courts based their denial of habeas corpus for the chimpanzees on the dictionary definition for "person." The term “person” tends to lean towards an entity that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human. The Appellate Division also reasoned that chimpanzees are not considered people because they lack the capacity to bear legal duties or to be held legally accountable for their actions. As a counter, the Petitioner argued that the same can be said for human infants or comatose human adults, yet no one would say that it is improper to seek a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of one of them. The Appellate Division therefore based their denial on the fact that chimpanzees are not a member of the human species. In the instant action, Court of Appeals of New York denied the motion for leave to appeal. In the concurring opinion, Judge Fahey states that the better approach is not to ask whether a chimpanzee fits the definition of a person or whether it has the same rights and duties as a human being, but whether he or she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. The concurring opinion also found that the Appellate Division erred by misreading the case it relied on and holding that a habeas corpus challenge cannot be used to seek transfer; a habeas corpus challenge can be used to seek a transfer to another facility. Although Judge Fahey recognizes that Chimpanzees share at least 96% of their DNA with humans and are autonomous, intelligent creatures, he concurred with the Appellate Division’s decision to deny leave to appeal. However, he ultimately questioned whether the Court was right to deny leave in the first instance. | Case |
| CA - Reptiles & Amphibians - Division 5. Protected Reptiles and Amphibians | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 5000 - 5062 | CA FISH & G § 5000 - 5062 | These sections are the California statutes that specifically protect certain reptiles and amphibians. The sections enumerate the protected species and strictly prohibit taking and possession, with a narrow exception that may be granted by permit to an educational or scientific institution or a public zoological garden. | Statute |
| NJ - Dog Bite - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by | N. J. S. A. 4:19-16 | NJ ST 4:19-16 | This New Jersey statute provides that the owner of any dog that bites a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute |
| MA - Cat of commonwealth - Chapter 2. Arms, Great Seal and Other Emblems of the Commonwealth. | M.G.L.A. 2 § 30 | MA ST 2 § 30 | The Tabby cat shall be the official cat of the Massachusetts commonwealth. | Statute |
| State v. Walker | 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio 2005) | 2005 WL 2697269 (Ohio), 164 Ohio App.3d 114 |
A dog owner was placed on probation which limited him from having any animals on his property for five years. While on probation, bears on the owner's property were confiscated after getting loose. The trial court ordered the dog owner to pay restitution for the upkeep of the confiscated bears, but the Court of Appeals reversed holding the trial court did not the authority to require the dog owner to pay restitution for the upkeep of the bears because the forfeiture of animals penalty did not apply to conviction for failure to confine or restrain a dog. |
Case |
| RI - Research - Chapter 27. Retirement of Research Dogs and Cats | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-27-1 - 2 | RI ST § 4-27-1 - 2 | This chapter, adopted in 2018, is the “Research Animal Retirement Act." A higher education research facility that receives public money must assess the health of a cat or dog to determine whether it is suitable for adoption once any testing or research on the animal has been completed. The facility must then make reasonable efforts to place those suitable dogs or cats through private adoption or adoption through a shelter or rescue. These efforts shall be made prior to euthanizing the dog or cat. | Statute |
| Mahtani v. Wyeth | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2609857 (D.N.J.) |
After some plaintiffs alleged their dogs suffered harmed as a result of using a tick and flea treatment medication, while others alleged the product was ineffective, plaintiffs sought to gain class certification in their lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. Since the district court found that individual inquiry into questions of fact predominated over inquiry into facts common to class members regarding the plaintiffs’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Warranty claims, the plaintiff’s motion for class certification was denied. |
Case |