Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Riverside Fairy S | 2005 WL 828405 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT45 |
FWS has designated critical habitat pursuant to section 3 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the federally endangered riverside fairy shrimp that encompasses 306 miles within Ventura, Orange, and San Diego Counties in California. The riverside fairy shrimp is a freshwater crustacean that is found in vernal pools (a shallow depression that fills with rainwater and does not drain into the lower drainage section) in the coastal California area. The shrimp is the second most primitive living crustacean and is the most recently discovered crustacean in California. |
Administrative | |
| Understanding Animal Law |
|
Policy | |||
| Com. v. Barnes | 427 Pa.Super. 326, 629 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.,1993) |
In this case, the defendants argued that the police powers granted to a private entity, the Erie Humane Society, was an improper delegation of government authority. On appeal, the defendants’ asserted several arguments including a claim that Pennsylvania’s delegation of government authority is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution The appeals court rejected each of defendants’ four arguments. Specifically, the court rejected defendants' assertion that the Erie Humane Society operates as "vigilantes," finding that the Society's actions are regulated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure with requirements of probable cause and the constraints of case law. |
Case | ||
| Dillon v. Greenbriar Digging Service | 919 So.2d 172 (Miss. 2005) |
In this Mississippi case, a horse owner brought negligence action against digging service when one of his horses was found dead near a trench dug by the service; the service refused to compensate owner for the value of his horse. The lower court found in favor of the digging service. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court, finding that the digging service used reasonable care in digging and filling of horse owner's trench. |
Case | ||
| MN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | M. S. A. § 343.01 - 40; 609.294; 609.596 - 597 | MN ST 343.01 - 40; MN ST 609.294; 609.596 - 597 | These Minnesota statute comprise the anti-cruelty laws in the state. This section first allows the formation of private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and humane societies and sets forth their obligations by law. "Animal" is defined by this section as every living creature except members of the human race. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor. Under the neglect component, the statute states that no person shall deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter, among other things. | Statute | |
| HI - Impound - Chapter 143. Animals: Licenses and Regulations. | H R S § 143-8 | HI ST § 143-8 | This Hawaii statute provides that, except where licensing requirements are dispensed with, every officer shall seize any unlicensed dog found running at large or found outside a sufficient enclosure even if within the immediate presence of its owner. The animal will then be confined at a pound for forty-eight hours whereupon it can be redeemed by the owner, sold, or humanely destroyed if not reclaimed. Each county council shall have the power to fix the impoundment fee for dogs. | Statute | |
| A night monkey perched on a corrugated pipe nest covered with feces. | Slideshow Images | ||||
| IE - Cruelty - Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965 | Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965 | This Ireland law is an amendment to the Animal Protections Act of 1911. It provides for more specific regulations regarding the treatment of animals. This act specifically addresses: care of impounded animals, use of poisonous gas in rabbit holes, restrictions on spring traps, open trapping, injured animals, laying of poisons, issues relating specifically to dogs, use of anesthetics in operations of animals, and the regulation of sale of pet animals. | Statute | ||
| O'Rourke v. American Kennels (Unpublished Disposition) | 7 Misc.3d 1018(A) (N.Y. 2005) | 801 N.Y.S.2d 237 (Table), 2005 WL 1026955 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.), 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50656(U) Unpublished Disposition |
In this highly entertaining Small Claims case, claimant seeks to recover the purchase price of her dog, Little Miss Muffet. The issue presented, in large part, concerns the dog's weight. Claimant contends that Muffet was supposed to be a "teacup dog." At eight pounds, she is well above the five pounds that is considered the weight limit for a "teacup" Maltese. Plaintiff paid an additional $1,000 above the standard $1,500 to purchase the smaller variety of Maltese. Plaintiff was awarded the differential in price, but not veterinary fees for a knee condition that developed after the warranty protections expired in the purchase agreement. |
Case | |
| McBride v. XYZ Ins. | 935 So.2d 326 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) | 2006 WL 1751771 (La.App. 2 Cir.), 41,129 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/28/06) |
In this Louisiana dog bite case, a guest individually and on behalf of child brought an action against the dog owner to recover for bites. The child's bites occurred while the guest and her child were visiting defendant's home after the child had been petting and hugging the dog (a fairly large Chow). The appellate court held that the adult guest's conduct of swatting the dog with a shoe after the dog had released the child's arm was not provocation and the defendant was strictly liable for the injuries. While the district court reasoned that the guest failed to use reasonable caution in reading the warning signs and provoked the dog by striking him after he had already released the child, this court found that the guest and her children entered the yard through the house, and she did not notice the signs. Moreover, both witnesses testified that events unfolded very fast; the record persuaded the court that Ms. McBride's conduct in swatting Smokey with a shoe was not an intentional provocation but a natural and inevitable reaction to seeing her child's arm in the dog's jaws. |
Case |
