Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wills & Trusts - Pet Animals: What Happens When Their Humans Die? | Gerry W. Beyer | 40 SANCLR 617 (2000) |
(From article) This article chronicles the evolution of enforcing after-death gifts for the benefit of pet animals. Part II reviews the common law background. Part III details the wide variety of approaches adopted by United States courts, legislatures, and commentators. These approaches treat after-death gifts for pets in three basic categories: (1) invalid; (2) tolerated, but not enforceable; and (3) valid and enforceable. After establishing the current milieu in which a pet owner must function, Part IV recommends the steps an owner may take to maximize the chances of the pet receiving the desired care after the owner's death. |
Article | ||
| Wills and Trusts | Rebecca Wisch |
Brief Summary of Pets in Trusts |
Topical Introduction | |||
| Wilson v. City of Eagan | 297 N.W.2d 146 (Minn., 1980) |
At issue is an Eagan, Minnesota ordinance that provides an impounded animal must be held for five days before being destroyed. In direct contravention of the ordinance and statute, Eagan animal warden Cary Larson and police officer Robert O'Brien, in performance of their duties, intentionally killed Timothy Wilson's pet cat on the same day it was properly impounded. By first finding that punitive damages were not precluded by statute against municipal employees, the court then examined whether punitive damages were appropriate in this case. While the court did not find that Larson acted with malice, it did find that his conduct in violating the statute showed a willful disregard for property rights. |
Case | |||
| Windridge Farm Pty Ltd v Grassi | [2010] NSWSC 335 |
The defendants entered the plaintiff's land, containing a piggery, with the intention of taking photographs and film footage to establish that the plaintiff failed to meet certain standards. The defendants' argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief because of 'unclean hands' was dismissed by the court. The court also found that the defensive argument based on 'implied freedom of political communication' did not have application in the circumstances. |
Case | |||
| Winingham v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. | 859 F.Supp. 1019 (1994) |
Ostrich owners sued to recover actual and exemplary damages, attorney fees, costs and interests for gross negligence after an airship flew over their property at low altitude, which frightened interfered with the ostriches’ breeding. The District Court held that: (1) allegations of fright and temporary loss of libido failed to allege compensable injury absent proof of physical injury; and (2) owners were not entitled to recover speculative value of unborn offspring; and (3) absent actual damages, exemplary damages could not be awarded. |
Case | |||
| Winkler v. Colorado Dept. of Health | 564 P.2d 107 (Colo. 1977) | 193 Colo. 170 (1977) |
In 1974, the Colorado Department of Health adopted certain regulations, the conceded effect of which is to prohibit importation of pets for resale from states whose licensing laws and regulations for commercial pet dealers are not as stringent as those of Colorado. The regulations exempt from this prohibition persons who import pets not for resale and exclusively for breeding purposes or for personal use. After the regulations were upheld by the Denver district court, the plaintiffs, who are commercial pet importers, brought this appeal. The court found these arguments to be unpersuasive and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. |
Case | ||
| Wolf time blah blah |
|
Article | ||||
| wolf timeline blah |
|
Article | ||||
| Wolf Timeline hmtl |
Pre 1930’s |
Article | ||||
| Wolf v. Taylor | 197 P.3d 585 (Or. App., 2008) | 224 Or. App. 245 (2008) | This action comes as part of the dissolution of the parties' domestic partnership. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement, which included a provision granting full ownership of Mike, the couple's dog, to Taylor, so long as he agreed to grant Wolf visitation with Mike. Approximately one month later, Wolf had second thoughts and moved to rescind the entire agreement based on the invalidity of the dog visitation provision. Wolf asserts the provision is invalid because it attempts to grant visitation with an item of personal property, and is impossible to perform. This court only answered the question whether invalidity of the dog visitation provision would invalidate the entire agreement, which they answer in the negative because of the severability provision included in the agreement. | Case |
