Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moore v. Knower | 214 So.3d 165 (La.App. 4 Cir., 2017) | 2016-0776 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/23/17) | Bruce Moore and Amy Knower were in a relationship and decided to adopt a dog together. Bruce alleged that they both jointly adopted Abby, a Boston Terrier in 2010. The couple jointly shared expenses for the care and management of the dog. After the parties broke up, they agreed to an arrangement in which each party alternated possession of Abby every week. The parties continued this arrangement even during their brief reconciliation up until July of 2015 when Amy Knower refused to exchange the dog with Bruce Moore. Moore filed suit and the trial court found for him and awarded him the use and management of Abby. Knower alleged that she was the sole owner of Abby. Knower appealed, alleging five assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in finding that she failed to support her claim of full ownership; (2) the trial court erred in finding that she co-owned Abby with Moore; (3) the trial court erred in failing to accept the testimony of Sheila Ford of the Mississippi Boston Terrier Rescue; (4) the trial court erred by stating that there was no basis in law for her to decide the custody of a dog and then doing just that; (5) the trial court erred by exercising jurisdiction over the matter. The Court determined that the trial court did in fact have jurisdiction over the matter. The Court did not find any errors in the trial court’s findings. It concluded that Abby was indeed co-owned by Moore and Knower and ultimately held that Knower had no right to unilaterally end the arrangement. Knower did not supply sufficient proof to support her claim of full ownership. Moore was awarded Abby and the right to solely determine use and management of the dog. | Case | |
| Canada | Policy | ||||
| Canada - P.E.I. Statutes. Dog Act | R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. D-13 s.1 - 21 |
This set of laws comprises the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Dog Act. The Act provides that no owner of a dog shall allow his dog to run at large; any dog found at large shall be deemed to have been allowed to be at large by its owner. In addition, the owner of livestock or any enforcement officer authorized by the owner of livestock, may kill a dog that is killing or injuring the owner's livestock, except where the livestock is on property held under lease, license or permit by the owner of the dog. This Act also outlines licensing requirements for dogs as well as impoundment procedures. |
Statute | ||
| NC - Edenton - Breed - Vicious Dogs | EDENTON, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 90.43 |
In Edenton, North Carolina, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any potentially vicious dog, which includes pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Chows. There are exceptions for dogs registered on the effective date, provided that the owner uses a leash and muzzle on the dog, keeps it properly confined, posts “Beware of Dog” signs, takes identification photographs, sterilizes the dog, and complies with reporting requirements. Failure to comply may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| US - Endangered - Final Rule To List the Tibetan Antelope as Endangered | 2006 WL 776962 (F.R.) |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has determined that the classification of the Tibetan antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) as endangered throughout its range is warranted, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The best available information indicates that the total population of Tibetan antelope has declined drastically over the past three decades such that it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This decline has resulted primarily from overutilization for commercial purposes and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. |
Administrative | ||
| Mackley v. State | 481 P.3d 639 (Wyo. 2021) | 2021 WY 33 (Wyo., 2021) | The Wyoming Supreme Court considers whether the jury was properly instructed on the charge of aggravated animal cruelty. The case stems from an incident where a dog escaped his owner and attacked the defendant's dogs at his front door. A local teenager grabbed the offending dog ("Rocky") and dragged him into the street as the dog fight carried on. The defendant responded by grabbing his gun and shooting Rocky as he was held by the teenager. A jury convicted defendant of both aggravated animal cruelty and reckless endangering. At the trial, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on both charges, arguing that the Wyoming Legislature has established that humanely destroying an animal is not animal cruelty and that the State did not provide evidence that he intentionally pointed a firearm at anyone, which defendant contends is necessary for the reckless endangering charge. On appeal here, the court first observed that defendant's challenge to a confusing or misleading jury instruction was waived because he negotiated with the prosecution to draft it. Further, the Supreme Court did not find an abuse of discretion where the district court refused defendant's additional instructions on the humane destruction of an animal in the jury instructions on the elements for the aggravated cruelty to animals charge. While defendant argued that the instructions should include subsection m from the statute, he only now on appeal contends that the subsection should have been given as a theory of defense. Thus, reviewing this argument for plain error, the Court found that defendant's theory that his killing was "humane" and thus excluded from the crime of aggravated cruelty was not supported by the language of the statute. In fact, such an interpretation not only goes against the plain language, but "then any animal could be killed, under any circumstances, as long as it is killed quickly." Defendant presented no evidence that the dog he shot was suffering or distressed and needed euthanasia. The trial court did not commit error when it declined to instruct the jury on subsection m. As to the reckless endangering conviction, the court also affirmed this charge as defendant showed a conscious disregard for the substantial risk he placed the teenager in regardless of whether he pointed the gun at the victim. Affirmed. | Case | |
| OK - Initiative - State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365 (Ban Cockfighting) | State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365 (Ban Cockfighting) | This petition makes it a felony to instigate or encourage cockfighting, possess or train birds for cockfighting, or maintain a facility for cockfighting in the state of Oklahoma. The ballot proposal also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly be a spectator at a cockfight. It passed in 2002 with 56% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| News Archives | This page provides archives of the news items that appeared on the website's front page. The month and year of the news story is listed. | Basic page | |||
| International Animal Welfare Promo |
|
Policy | |||
| Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc. | 614 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 2000) |
Plaintiff, a licensed horse exercise rider sued the operator of a horse racing facility after he had been injured when he was thrown off a horse that he had been exercising, when the horse became spooked by a kite on the Defendant’s premises. The court determined that the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) did not offer protection of immunity to the Defendant because the exercising was found to be an activity in preparation for a horse race and the EALA does not apply to “horse race meetings.” However, the Plaintiff had previously signed a release, which covered “all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises,” therefore, the Defendant was released from liability of negligence. |
Case |