Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 925 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1991) |
USDA had suspended a kennel owner’s license for 90 days and imposed a fine on the owner for violating AWA regulations. These violations included delivering dogs for transportation in commerce, that were under eight weeks old, failing to hold dogs for at least five days after acquiring them, and refusing APHIS inspections. Owner claimed that such sanctions were excessive. However, the court found that there was willful violation of the AWA, since inspections were refused. Also, ignorance is not considered a defense, and although the owners claimed they did not know the age of the eight-week old puppies, they could have found out. Thus, the sanction was appropriate. |
Case | ||
| ALDF v. Glickman | 154 F.3d 426 (1998) |
Animal welfare group and individual plaintiffs brought action against, inter alia, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its regulations concerning treatment of nonhuman primates on grounds that they violated USDA's statutory mandate under Animal Welfare Act (AWA). |
Case | ||
| Acción de incumplimiento No. 25000-23-41-000-2023-00292-01- Colombia- Do not publish yet |
Sentencia promulgada por la sala Contencioso-Administrativa del Consejo de Estado en la que se ordena la reglamentación de la ley de fomento apícola de 2022. |
Case | |||
| Corte Suprema Rol N°50.969-22 | Corte Suprema Rol N°50.969-22 | In July 2022, the Interspecies Justice Foundation filed the first writ of habeas corpus for a non-human animal in Chile. The petition urged the court to recognize Sandai, a 28-year-old orangutan to be recognized as a non-human person and subject of rights, and therefore, to end his captivity in Buin Zoo in Chile. The plaintiff argued that Sandai lived in conditions unfit for his species. One of the expert testimonies submitted to the court stated that “Sandai’s body language reflects a depressed, defeated, and vulnerable emotional and psychological state, which is normal if we consider the conditions in which Sandai is being kept.” The Chilean Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court denying the admissibility of the habeas corpus filed on behalf of Sandai. In dismissing the appeal, the court stated that the constitution in its article 19 refers to persons and that in accordance with the Royal Spanish Academy, persons are individuals of the human species. Therefore, Sandai does not meet the legal requirements to be protected under this legal mechanism. Thus, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals of San Miguel on July 27. Furthermore, with the purpose of protecting the well-being of Sandai, the Supreme Court ordered the Livestock Service (SAG) to adopt all appropriate measures to guarantee that the Buin Zoo complies with the law, specifically attending to Sandai’s case, stating: “that the deprivation of his liberty does not cause him suffering and any other alteration of its normal development, verifying that they have the appropriate facilities for his species, avoiding all mistreatment and deterioration of his health”. | Case | ||
| People v. Garcia | 777 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. 2004) |
Defendant was convicted for violating the anti-cruelty statute toward animals. On appeal, the Court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague when applied to defendant's crimes. Motion denied. |
Case | ||
| Burgess v. Taylor | 44 S.W.3d 806 (Ky. 2001) | 91 A.L.R.5th 749 (Ky. 2001) |
Owner of pet horses sued boarders of horses who sold them for slaughter, asserting tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court held that: (1) element of tort of outrage, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, requiring outrageous and intolerable conduct depends on conduct of wrongdoer, not subject of conduct; (2) boarders' actions constituted tort of outrage; and (3) award of $50,000 compensatory damages and $75,000 punitive damages was not excessive. |
Case | |
| Kovar v. City of Cleveland | 102 N.E.2d 472 (Ohio App. 1951) | 60 Ohio Law Abs. 579 (1951) |
This case involved a petition by LaVeda Kovar, et al against the City of Cleveland to obtain an order to restrain the City from disposing of dogs impounded by the City Dog Warden by giving or selling them to hospitals or laboratories for experimental and research purposes. The Court of Appeals held that the City of Cleveland, both by its constitutional right of home rule and by powers conferred on municipal corporations by statute, had the police power right to provide that no dog should be permitted to run at large unless muzzled, and any dog found at large and unmuzzled would be impounded. Further, by carrying out the mandate of the city ordinance by disposing of these impounded dogs was simply the performance of a ministerial or administrative duty properly delegated to Director of Public Safety. |
Case | |
| NJ - Ordinance - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by. | NJSA 4:19-15.12 | NJ ST 4:19-15.12 | This New Jersey statute provides that a municipality may by ordinance, fix the sum to be paid annually for a dog license and each renewal thereof, which sum shall be not less than $1.50 nor more than $21.00. The statute also also provides upper and lower limits for three-year licenses. | Statute | |
| IN RE: E. LEE COX AND BECKY COX, D/B/A PIXY PALS KENNEL | 49 Agric. Dec. 115 (1990) | 1990 WL 320949 (U.S.D.A.) |
This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. ss 2131- 2156). On April 20, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Edwin S. Bernstein (ALJ) issued an initial Decision and Order suspending respondents' license for 90 days, and thereafter until respondents demonstrate compliance with the Act and regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $12,000, and directing respondents to cease and desist from failing to retain possession and control of all dogs until they are at least 8 weeks of age and have been weaned, failing to hold dogs for not less than 5 business days after acquisition, failing to keep and maintain proper records, and failing to allow inspection of respondents' facility and records. Dealers and other regulated persons are required to grant access to their records during ordinary business hours, without any advance notice from Department. |
Case | |
| KY - Farm animal - 302 KAR 21:030. Beef Cattle, Bison, and Veal Specific Provisions | 302 KY ADC 21:030 | 302 KAR 21:030 | Beginning in 2010, Kentucky legislators used the legislative initiative process to pass House Bill 398, which requires the Kentucky Livestock Care Standards Commission to make recommendations to the Board of Agriculture to create standards for the keeping of livestock. In response, the Kentucky Board of Agriculture passed Administrative Regulation 302 21:030 in 2014 to provide additional standards and authorized practices for the keeping of livestock for beef and veal. These standards ensure that beef cows and veal calves have sufficient space, access to food and water, and that veal calves are kept in group pens to allow the calves to socialize. | Administrative |