Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waters v. Meakin | [1916] 2 KB 111 |
The respondent had been acquitted of causing unnecessary suffering to rabbits (contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s. 1(1)) by releasing them into a fenced enclosure from which they had no reasonable chance of escape, before setting dogs after them. Dismissing the prosecutor's appeal, the Divisional Court held that the respondent's conduct fell within the exception provided for "hunting or coursing" by sub-s. (3) (b) of s. 1of the 1911 Act. From the moment that the captive animal is liberated to be hunted or coursed, it falls outwith the protection of the 1911 Act, irrespective of whether the hunting or coursing is humane or sportsmanlike. |
Case | |
| Hendrickson v. Tender Care Animal Hospital Corporation | 312 P.3d 52 (2013) | 176 Wash. App. 757 (2013) | Dog owner brought claims of professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, lack of informed consent, reckless breach of a bailment contract, and emotional distress after her golder retriever, Bear, died following a routine neutering procedure. After the surgery, Bear was bloated and vomiting, and the owner alleged that the animal hospital failed to properly inform her of his condition. As a result, the owner treated Bear with a homeopathic remedy instead of the prescription medication given to her by the hospital and Bear's condition worsened and eventually caused his death. | Case |
| VA - Nuisance animals - § 29.1-517. Trapping and shooting of fur-bearing animals during closed season | VA Code Ann. § 29.1-517 | VA ST § 29.1-517 | This Virginia law states that a landowner may shoot fur-bearing animals upon his own land during closed season when these animals are causing damage to crops or property, or are posing a threat to human health or safety, or are otherwise causing a nuisance. | Statute |
| MA - Cambridge - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.12: Care and Use of Laboratory Animals) | The Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge §§ 6.12.010 - 6.12.100 |
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, research institutions that perform experiments on animals must do so in conformity with all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations, as well as maintain or establish an autonomous animal care and use committee with the power to disapprove or restrict research, experiments or regarding the care and use of laboratory animals. This ordinance also establishes a Commissioner of Laboratory Animals (CLA) for the purpose of overseeing research institutions and their committees. Penalties for violating these provisions are also provided. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Rabideau v. City of Racine | 627 N.W.2d 795 (Wis. 2001) |
Pet owner could not recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress after a police officer shot her dog. While the court recognized the bond between owner and pet, public policy prevented such recovery. However, under the proper circumstances, a person could recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the loss of a pet. |
Case | |
| Scotland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 | 2011 asp 6 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals in Scotland, and makes amendments to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Fullmer | 584 F.3d 132 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 2009) | 2009 WL 3273955 (C.A.3 (N.J.)) |
In an issue of first impression, this Court considered whether the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was unconstitutional either on its face or as-applied to defendants. The defendants in this case were an animal rights organization ("SHAC") and six associated individuals. The defendants engaged in direct action ranging from electronic civil disobedience to destroying property at the homes of individuals associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences (a research corporation that performs animal testing for other companies). Defendants argued that the statute has a chilling effect on speech because protestors will refrain from all speech, even protected speech, due to the ambiguity of what the statute proscribes. Thus the Court found that the government provided sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants conspired to violate the AEPA. |
Case |
| WY - Hunting - Article 1. Game Bird Farms. | W.S.1977 §§ 23-5-101 - 111 | WY ST §§ 23-5-101 - 111 | This Wyoming statute provides that one who desires to operate a game bird farm must file a verified declaration that states the purpose of the farm (breeding, propagating, or hunting) and a legal description of the tract of land. | Statute |
| SC - Hunting - Article 13. Fox and Coyote Hunting Enclosures | Code 1976 § 50-11-2600 - 2650 | SD ST § 50-11-2600 - 2650 | Under these South Carolina statutes, it is unlawful to buy, sell, transfer, possess, or release a live coyote or fox except as permitted. Foxes and coyotes obtained to stock hunting enclosures may be obtained only by the enclosure owner or operator from a South Carolina licensed trapper. A violation of any provision is a misdemeanor; the first offense is punishable by a fine of $50-500, and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. | Statute |
| ALDF v. Quigg | 932 F.2d 920(Fed. Cir. 1991) | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 | This case establishes the relative inability of third parties to challenge the veracity of an existing patent for genetically engineered animals. Judicial review is rare in such cases because third party plaintiffs, under the Administrative Procedures Act, lack standing to challenge the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of existing law. | Case |