Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burgess v. Taylor |
Taylor v. Burgess is a landmark case in Kentucky allowing non-economic damages for an animal. Judy Taylor's two horses were stolen and sold for slaughter. Taylor then successfully sued for non-economic damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Johnson v. Needham | [1909] 1 KB 626 |
The Court upheld a decision of local justices to dismiss an information that the defendant "did cruelly ill-treat, abuse, and torture a certain animal" contrary to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849, s. 2 (1). The Act made it an offence to ill-treat, abuse, or torture an animal, and thereby established three separate offences from which the prosecutor should have elected. Note: Although the 1949 Act has been repealed, similar language appears in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a), and presumably the same reasoning applies to that statutory provision. |
Case | |
| People v. Alvarado | 2005 WL 120218 (Cal. 2005) |
A man stabbed and killed his two dogs while drunk. His girlfriend called the police after being informed of the situation by her brother. The trial court convicted the man of violating an anti-cruelty statute (Sec. 597 of the Penal Code). The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction, finding that Sec. 597 is a general intent crime and did not require a showing of specific intent to kill or harm the dog. |
Case | |
| LaRosa v. River Quarry Apartments, LLC | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 3538951 (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2019) | No. 1:18-CV-00384-BLW | Plaintiffs, Robert and Iva LaRosa filed this action in August of 2018, alleging that the defendants violated their rights under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). The Court dismissed the complaint and the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Plaintiffs had applied to live at River Quarry Apartments in August of 2017. They requested a reasonable accommodation to keep their dog at the apartment without paying a fee. The Plaintiffs provided a copy of a note from a nurse practitioner stating that the companion dog helps manage Mr. LaRosa’s post-traumatic stress disorder. The Plaintiffs were approved for the apartment but told that their reasonable accommodation request was still being processed and received forms to fill out regarding the reasonable accommodation. River Quarry required Mr. LaRose’s doctor to fill out a form verifying the need for an assistance animal. Rather than completing the form, the plaintiffs provided a letter from Mr. LaRosa’s primary care physician which stated that in the doctor’s opinion, an emotional support animal would help mitigate the symptoms that Mr. LaRose was experiencing. River Quarry insisted on speaking with Mr. LaRose’s doctor directly to verify the information that the plaintiffs had given. After Kirk Cullimore, an attorney on behalf of River Quarry, spoke with the doctor, River Quarry wrote a letter to the Plaintiffs denying their request for a reasonable accommodation stating that the doctor declined to verify that Mr. LaRosa met the two prong test that one must be handicapped and there must be a nexus between the handicap and the need for the animal. Soon after this, Mr. LaRosa saw his primary care physician and had the actual form completed by his doctor and turned it in to River Quarry. Kirk Cullimore believed that the doctor’s signature on the form was forged and called Mr. LaRose’s doctor to speak with him again. The doctor’s secretary informed Cullimore that the signature was genuine. Mr. and Mrs. LaRosa argued that they were injured by the discrimination of the Defendants in violation of the FHA. The Court denied the Plaintiffs claim under the FHA because they did not sufficiently allege that the Defendants refused to make the requested accommodation. River Quarry allowed the dog to stay in the apartment while their request for an accommodation was reviewed. The Court stated that housing providers are granted a meaningful opportunity to investigate a request for an accommodation. Housing providers do not have to immediately approve a request for an accommodation right away. River Quarry ended up approving the request within 45 days after the initial request. The Court held that this was not an unreasonable delay considering that River Quarry did not have sufficient information to make a determination until after Mr. LaRosa’s doctor completed the verification form. Prior to that the doctor’s letter and the phone call between Cullimore and the doctor did not reveal enough information for River Quarry to make a determination on the accommodation. The Plaintiffs, however, succeeded on their interference claim. The LaRosas were engaged in a protected activity when they applied for a reasonable accommodation and they sufficiently alleged that they were subjected to adverse action and that a causal link existed between the protected activity and the adverse action. The Defendants misrepresented the contents of Mr. Cullimore and Mr. LaRosa’s doctor’s conversation. The Court ultimately denied in part and granted in part the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss claims against Kirk Cullimore and his law office. | Case |
| Companion Animal Issues | Policy | |||
| VA - Assistance animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6528, 6588; § 46.2-932.1 - 934; § 51.5-40.1 - 51.5-46; § 36-96.1:1 - 3.2 | VA ST § 3.2-6528, 6588; § 46.2-932.1 - 934; § 51.5-40.1 - 51.5-46; § 36-96.1:1 - 3.2 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| LA - Morgan City - Breed - Sec. 18-65. Pit bulls prohibited. | MORGAN CITY, LA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 18-65 (2000) |
Morgan City, Louisiana makes it unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull, with exceptions. For example, if the owner has a permit for a pit bull on or before July 25, 2006, who has a pit bull license, and who maintains the pit bull in compliance with the pit bull license requirements, may keep a pit bull within the city. If the owner does not comply with the requirements, the pit bull could be impounded and destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Dog Federation of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee | 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis.App.,1993) |
This appeal is by the Dog Federation of Wisconsin and others who contest a City of South Milwaukee ordinance that imposes restrictions on the ownership and keeping of “pit bulls.” The Federation claims that the “pit bull” aspects of the ordinance are facially invalid because: the definition of “pit bull” is impermissibly vague; the ordinance is overbroad; and the ordinance violates their right to equal protection. The court found that reference to recognized breeds provides sufficient specifics to withstand a vagueness challenge. With regard to equal protection, the court held that the ordinance is founded on “substantial distinctions” between the breeds of dog covered by the ordinance and other breeds of dog. Moreover, the ordinance is “germane” to the underlying purpose of the ordinance to protect persons and animals from dangerous dogs. Finally, the ordinance applies equally to the affected class of persons owning or keeping pit bulls. |
Case | |
| City of Sausalito v. Brian O'Neill | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457 (N.D. Cal. 2002) |
In considering standing under the MMPA, the court found that the plaintiff city had only pure economic injury and had not shown that any harm would result to marine mammals protected under the MMPA. |
Case | |
| Scotland - Wildlife - Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 | 2004 asp 6 | This Act makes amendments to the protection of wildlife under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981, and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in respect of Scotland. Wild animal protection is extended to include reckless as well as intentional acts. The Act also makes it an offence to disturb or harass a dolphin, whale or basking shark, and amends the provisions for enforcement. | Statute |