Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. A.S.P.C.A. | Davis v. A.S.P.C.A. 75 N.Y. 362 (1873). |
Plaintiff hog slaughterers challenged the trial court (New York) judgment in favor of defendants, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and director, in an action seeking to enjoin defendants from arresting them for cruelty to animals pursuant to 1867 N.Y. Laws 375. The hog slaughterers asserted that they were innocent of the alleged statutory violations. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of defendants, denying the request of the hog slaughterers for an injunction to prevent defendants from arresting them for violating a statute prohibiting cruelty to animals. |
Case | ||
| Ohio v. Hale | 2005 WL 3642690 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.) | 2005 Ohio 7080 |
Defendant-Appellant, Norman Hale, appeals the decision of the Monroe County Court that found him guilty of multiple counts of cruelty to animals in violation of R.C. 959.13(A)(4). Hale argues that this statute is unconstitutionally vague, that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court imposed improper sanctions upon him. The court disregard Hale's constitutional argument since he failed to provide legal argument in support of this claim. Hale's argument that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence also is meritless since the evidence in the record supports the trial court's decision that he recklessly failed to provide these dogs with wholesome exercise. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when imposing the sanctions since the conditions of his probation were related to the underlying offense and served the ends of rehabilitation. For these reasons, the trial court's decision was affirmed. |
Case | |
| People v. Olary (On Appeal) | 170 N.W.2d 842 (Mich. 1969) | 382 Mich. 559 (Mich. 1969) |
Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of cruelty to animals. Specifically, defendant argued that the Court of Appeals erroneously upheld the conviction because of his inattention to the condition of the cows and failure to provide medical treatment, when such action or failure to act was not punishable under the anti-cruelty statute. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of cruelty to animals because as a farmer, defendant could have realized that his conduct was cruel. |
Case | |
| Argentina - Transportation - Decreto 1248, 1975 | Decreto 1248 | This Decreto contains the regulations for the safe treatment of live animals during loading, unloading and transportation of livestock. It aims for the humane treatment of animals during transportation and other related options. | Statute | ||
| NY - Endangered Species - Part 182. Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife | 6 NY ADC 182..1 - .17 | 6 NYCRR 182.1 - .17 | This set of New York regulations concerns endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. Section 182.5 provides a list of native species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Under Section 182.7, the department may issue a license to a person to transport, sell, import and/or possess a listed species for purposes it deems legitimate. | Administrative | |
| NJ - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | N.J.S.A. 2A:42-109; 10:5-5; 10:5-29.1 - 11; 39:4-37.1; 27:25-5b; 48:3-33; App. A:9-43.2; 2C:29-3.1, 3.2; 48:3-33; 18A:46-13.3; 36:2-213 | NJ ST 2A:42-109; 10:5-5; 10:5-29.1 - 11; 39:4-37.1; 27:25-5b; 48:3-33; App. A:9-43.2; 2C:29-3.1, 3.2; 18A:46-13.3; 36:2-213 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| Young's Bus Lines v. Redmon | 43 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1931) |
Appellee blind newspaper vendor had a trained seeing eye dog that was run over and killed by a public bus, driven by appellant. The court held that the measure of damages was the market value of the dog at the time and place where it was killed. If the dog had no market value, then the intrinsic or actual value to appellee was the measure of damages. |
Case | ||
| Jacobsen v. Schwarz | 50 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2008) | 2008 WL 1823297 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.) |
Plaintiff appeals an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment that dismissed her personal injury case. The plaintiff commenced this action after she was bitten by defendant's dog while working on a computer at defendant's house. This court found that summary judgment was not appropriate because the defendant warned plaintiff that the dog was possessive about her ball and not to touch it. These warnings along with the dog's actions with the ball may give rise to a finding that the defendant knew or should have known that the dog possessed a vicious propensity or a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm. |
Case | |
| Leith v. Frost | 899 N.E.2d 635 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.,2008) | 387 Ill.App.3d 430; 2008 WL 5473300 | In this Illinois case, plaintiffs, Mark and Mindy Leith, sued defendant, Andrew E. Frost, for tortious damage to their personal property, a dachshund named Molly. The trial court found in plaintiffs' favor with an award of $200, Molly's fair market value, rather than the $4,784 in veterinary expenses. While the court recognized fair market value is the traditional ceiling for damage to personal property, Illinois courts have held that certain items of personal property (heirlooms, photographs, pets, etc.) have no market value. Thus, the basis for assessing compensatory damages in such a case is to determine the actual value to the plaintiff beyond nominal damages. Adopting the rationale of the Kansas Court of Appeals in Burgess v. Shampooch Pet Industries, Inc., t his Court found that Mollly's worth to plaintiffs was established by the $4,784 plaintiffs paid for the dog's veterinary care. | Case | |
| Colombia - Bullfighting - LEY 916, 2004, National bullfighting Statute | LEY 916, 2004 | Ley 916, or National Bullfighting Statute, declares bullfighting as “a form of artistic expression”. This statute has national scope, and regulates everything concerning the preparation, organization and development of bullfighting, giving a status of legality in the legal system. The Taurine Statute discusses topics such as the characteristics of the bullring, the name of different areas in the ring, and their purpose. It has an extensive glossary explaining the different methods utilized during the different phases of the bullfight, procedures to weaken and kill the bull, the moves of the animal and the bullfighters. This statute defines the name of the weapons and how and when to use them. It notes requirements such as that every bullring stadium must provide medical assistance for the participants, with all least four specialized doctors in every bullfight. While on-site medical care is outlined for the human participants, no veterinarian is required to be present during the execution of the bullfight. | Statute |