Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimes v. Grosser | 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 581 (Ca., 2011) | 2011 WL 2128649 (Ca., 2011); 195 Cal.App.4th 1556 (2011) |
After neighbors shot a cat, the owners sued to recover costs of its medical care and punitive damages. The owner of an injured pet may recover the lesser of the diminution of the market value of the animal, or the reasonable cost of repair. The Court of Appeal held that the owner could recover damages for costs incurred in treating the cat even if the costs exceeded the market value of the cat. The owner could also recover punitive damages upon a showing that the shooting was willful. |
Case |
| UT - Breed - § 18-2-101. Regulation of dogs by a municipality | U.C.A. 1953 § 18-2-101 | UT ST § 18-2-101 | This Utah law effective in 2015 prohibits a municipality from adopting breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs. Any breed-specific rule, regulation, policy, or ordinance regarding dogs is void. | Statute |
| MT - Initiatives - I-143 (game farm reform) | 1-143 (2000) | This initiative would amend state law to prohibit all new alternative livestock ranches, also known as game farms. Existing game farms would be allowed to continue operating, but would be prohibited from transferring their license to any other party. They would also be prohibited from allowing shooting of game farm animals for any type of fee. The proposal also repeals provisions of the law concerning applications for expansion of game farms. If approved by voters, the measure would take effect immediately. It was passed in 2000 by 51.4% of voters. | Statute | |
| CA - Impound - § 597e. Domestic animals; impounding without sufficient food or water; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597e | CA PENAL § 597e | This statute requires anyone who impounds an animal to supply the animal with sufficient food and water. It also states that if an animal is not provided with food and water, a person may enter the pound where the animal is being held, and provide it with food and water without being liable for the entry. | Statute |
| Canada - New Brunswick Statutes - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-12, s. 0.1 - 32(2) | This set of laws establishes the New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty. Under the Act, the Minister may appoint an officer, agent or employee of the society or any other person to be an animal protection officer who shall attend to the enforcement of this Act. Where an animal has been seized under this Act, the animal protection officer shall within 3 business days notify the owner or make reasonable attempts to identify and notify the owner. A person who has ownership, possession or the care and control of an animal shall provide the animal with food, water, shelter and care in accordance with the regulations. | Statute | |
| Quigley v. McClellan | 214 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719 (2013) | This is an action for veterinary malpractice brought by the owner of two horses, who alleges defendant veterinarian negligently performed pre-purchase examinations of the two horses. These pre-purchase examinations caused the plaintiff to purchase horses with physical problems that impeded their ability to be used as competition horses. The jury found that the veterinarian was negligent in performing the examinations for one of the horses, and the trial court awarded $46,000 in damages for plaintiff. On appeal, the court held that there was no evidence of an applicable standard of care, and reversed the judgment of the lower court. | Case | |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4543043 (N.D.Cal.) | (only the Westlaw cite is available) |
In an action alleging multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to Defendants’ final rule designating the polar bear as threatened and promulgation of a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA, Defendants Kempthorne and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service brought a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Intervenor-Defendant Arctic Slope Regional Corporation brought a separate motion to transfer the case to the District of Alaska, and Intervenor-Defendant Alaska Oil and Gas Association filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL Panel) seeking to transfer the case to the D.C. District Court . The United States District Court, N.D. California denied the motion to transfer the case to the District of Alaska, and decided to take the motion to transfer to the District of Columbia into submission and rule on it once the MDL Panel has issued its decision on whether to transfer the case to the District of Columbia. |
Case |
| In re Priv. Crim. Complaint Filed by Animal Outlook | 271 A.3d 516 (2022), appeal granted, order vacated, 298 A.3d 37 (Pa. 2023) | 2022 WL 588181, 2022 PA Super 37 (Feb. 28, 2022) | Animal Outlook (“AO”) appealed from the order that dismissed its petition for review of the disapproval of the Franklin County District Attorney's Office (“DA”) of multiple private criminal complaints. The requested charges stem from information obtained from an undercover agent who was employed at Martin Farms, where she captured video of cruel mistreatment of animals on the farm that AO contends constituted criminal animal cruelty. These data were complied into a table of 327 incidents, a letter of support from a veterinarian, and a legal memorandum that detailed how these incidents violated Pennsylvania law. AO submitted the gathered information to the pertinent authorities in January 2019 and the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) initiated an investigation which concluded more than a year later. Ultimately, the PSP issued a press release in March 2020 that indicated that the District Attorney had declined prosecution. After this, AO drafted private criminal complaints that were submitted to the Magisterial District Judge who concluded that the DA correctly determined that there was not enough evidence for prosecution. AO then filed a petition of review of the disapproval of its private complaints pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(B)(1) before the trial court, which again dismissed AO petition for review. AO filed this appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In reviewing the trial court's decision, the Superior Court found that the trial court committed multiple errors of law. First, the trial court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to moving forward with a prosecution and gave too much credit to the evidence from the Martin Farms veterinarian versus the undercover agent's testimony. The trial court went beyond its role of determining whether the evidence proffered supported each element of the crime charged and instead gave impermissible weight and credibility to Martin Farms evidence. Second, the court made a point of noting that Martin Farms voluntarily changed its practices after the investigation, which had no bearing on the legal sufficiency for criminal charges. The trial court also addressed "only a hand-picked few of the alleged instances of abuse," especially with regard to ignoring the non-anesthetized dehorning of calves. Thus, this court found that AO provided sufficient evidence to show prima facie cases of neglect, cruelty, and aggravated cruelty with respect to the incidents. The court then analyzed whether the record supported a defense of "normal agricultural operations" defense that would counter the charges. This court found that incidents like the dehorning of cattle that already had horns fused to the skull and extreme tail twisting and shocking were sufficient to overcome the affirmative defense. The trial court's dismissal of AO's petition for review was reversed and the trial court was ordered to direct the DA to accept and transmit charges for prosecution. | Case |
| In the Matter of: Darcy Lynn Shawyer | 1980 NOAA LEXIS 2 | 2 O.R.W. 301 (1980) |
This case is a civil penalty proceeding under the MMPA for the unlawful importation of eight bottlenose porpoises into the United States. In this case, the court found that specific intent is not required for importation under the MMPA. The court found that the route taken over the United States, the requirement to land for customs clearance purposes, or weather conditions was known or should have been foreseeable to all parties. |
Case |
| Johnson v. District of Columbia | 2014 WL 5316644 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2014) (Only the Westlaw citation is currently available) | Although he has never been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under the District of Columbia's Animal Control Act, plaintiff, an animal rights activist, challenges a provision that reads: “No person shall knowingly and falsely deny ownership of any animal.” D.C.Code § 8–1808(b). Plaintiff asserts that he desires to give speeches in the District of Columbia about why he opposes treating animals as property, and in such speeches he would like to deny ownership of his dog. However, he alleges that he does not do so because he is deterred by D.C.Code § 8–1808(b). Plaintiff therefore sued the District of Columbia to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the statute violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The District Court, however, found that plaintiff lacked standing because he presented no concrete evidence to substantiate his fears of prosecution, but rather rests his claims on mere conjecture about possible governmental actions. Such hypothetical fears cannot form the basis for standing under Article III of the US Constitution. The defendant's motion to dismiss was therefore granted and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed. | Case |