Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Wildlife in Need & Wildlife in Deed, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 828461 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 12, 2018) | In this case, the Plaintiff (PETA) filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the Defendants (WIN) alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) relating to the declawing of the Defendants' captive Big Cats (lions, tigers, and hybrids). WIN operates as a AWA-USDA licensed wildlife exhibitor and charges the public a fee to directly interact with the Big Cat Cubs. Notably, the court indicates that WIN has been cited for more than 50 times for failing to meet minimum standards under the AWA. Defendants "routinely" declaw the Big Cats, not out of medical necessity, but because it "makes them easier to handle." Testimony showed that two Big Cat Cubs died as the result of complications from declawing and Defendants do not provide post-surgical pain medication or antibiotics. In October of 2017, the court issued a temporary restraining order preventing Defendants from declawing, and, the following December, Plaintiffs filed the present Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The court held a hearing in January 2018 in which the court heard evidence and arguments. In reviewing the factors supporting issuance of a preliminary injunction, the court found there was a likelihood of success in proving the declawing and baby cat "play" time constituted takings under the ESA. In addition, there were no adequate remedies available at law and the court held irreparable harm would result from the declaws. Thus, the court GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. | Case | ||
| RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-15.1. Ordinances concerning unrestricted and vicious dogs prohibited--Leash laws | Gen.Laws 1956, § 4-13-15.1 | RI ST § 4-13-15.1 | This Rhode Island statute provides that city or town councils may make any ordinances concerning dogs in their cities or towns as the councils deem expedient, pertaining to the conduct of dogs. The statute outlines specifically what the ordinances may address, including regulations relating to unrestricted dogs, leash laws, confinement, and destruction of vicious dogs. The statute also adds additional provisions relating to the towns of Westerly and Exeter. | Statute | |
| NC - Malpractice - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations. | N.C.G.S.A. § 90-21.12 | NC ST § 90-21.12 | This North Carolina statute provides the standard of health care in actions for damages for personal injury or death arising out of medical-based malpractice. Under the statute, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider’s actions fell below the standards of practice of other health care professionals similarly trained and situated in the same or similar communities. | Statute | |
| Rupert v. U.S. | 181 F. 87 (8th Cir. 1910) | 104 C.C.A. 255 (1910) |
Paris N. Rupert, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously deliver to the Frisco Railroad Company, a common carrier, for transportation out of said territory and to the city of Chicago in the state of Illinois, the dead bodies of quail, which said quail had theretofore been killed in the Territory of Oklahoma in violation of the laws of said territory and with the intent and purpose of being shipped and transported out of said territory in violation of the laws of said territory. The court held that the territory of Oklahoma had the authority to provide by legislation, as it did, that wild game, such as quail, should not be shipped out of the state, even though the game was killed during the open season. Further, the act of Congress (the Lacey Act) is valid wherein it is declared that the shipment out of the territory in violation of the territorial law constitutes a crime under the national law. |
Case | |
| Banasczek v. Kowalski | 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 94 (1979) | 1979 WL 489 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1979) |
Edward Banasczek (plaintiff) instituted an action in trespass against William Kowalski (defendant) for money damages resulting from the alleged shooting of two of plaintiff's dogs. The court held the following: “[T]he claim for emotional distress arising out of the malicious destruction of a pet should not be confused with a claim for the sentimental value of a pet, the latter claim being unrecognized in most jurisdictions. Secondly we do not think, as defendant argues, that the owner of the maliciously destroyed pet must have witnessed the death of his or her pet in order to make a claim for emotional distress.” Pennsylvania has summarily rejected a claim for loss of companionship for the death of a dog. |
Case | |
| 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 | |
| AK - Importation - Chapter 36. Animal Health | 18 AK ADC 36.001 - 990 | 18 AAC 36.001 - 990 | These Alaska regulations concern the importation requirements for animals. Health certificates and permits from the state veterinarian are required. | Administrative | |
| NY - Service Animal - Chapter 24-A. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107 | NY GEN OBLIG § 11-107 | Under this New York statute, a disabled person whose guide, hearing or service dog is injured due to the negligence of the owner of another dog in handling that other dog may recover damages from the owner or custodian of the non-guide guide dog. These damages include veterinarian fees, replacement or retraining costs for the guide dog, lost wages, or damages for loss of mobility during retraining or replacement of the dog. | Statute | |
| MI - Statute of Limitations -Chapter 58. Limitation of Actions | M.C.L.A. 600.5805 | MI ST 600.5805 | This Michigan statute outlines the statute of limitations for injuries to persons or property. Under the statute, actions for malpractice have a two-year statute of limitation. | Statute | |
| Kankey v. State | 2013 Ark. App. 68, Not Reported in S.W.3d (Ark.App.,2013) | 2013 WL 458000 (Ark.App.,2013) |
A district court found the appellant’s animals had been lawfully seized, and then divested appellant of ownership of the animals and vested custody to the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The appellant filed an appeal in the civil division of the circuit court, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal as untimely and not properly perfected. Upon another appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals found it had no jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the case. |
Case |