Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK - Unalaska - Title 12: Animal Control (Chapter: 12.04: Animal Control) | Unalaska Code of Ordinances §§ 12.04.020, 12.04.150, 12.04.160 | Under this Unalaska, Alaska ordinance, a person who owns a seeing-eye dog, a hearing aid dog, or other aid dog is exempt from the license fees. Furthermore, this ordinance exempts such dogs from provisions that prohibit animals from entering certain places as long as the owner carries proper documentation certified by a recognized aid dog institution. | Local Ordinance | |
| Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0048 | Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0048 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether city ordinances are preempted by statutes that govern the treatment of animals. Specifically, the opinion discusses pigeon shoots. The opinion emphasizes that organized pigeon shoots are prohibited under Texas cruelty laws but that present wildlife laws allow the killing of feral pigeons. |
Case | |
| Sierra Club v. California American Water Co. | Slip Copy, 2010 WL 135183 (N.D.Cal.,2010) |
The Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA) brought suit against the California American Water Company (CAW), a water and wastewater utility, seeking injunctive relief and alleging that the company was wrongfully diverting water from the Carmel River and causing harm to the South Central California Coast Steelhead fish (steelhead), an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). CAW moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Court must dismiss the action under the Younger abstention doctrine because hearing the Plaintiffs' claim would interfere with ongoing state judicial proceedings. At the time that the Sierra Club and CRSA brought suit, CAW was involved in ongoing proceedings with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which maintains original jurisdiction over the appropriation of surface waters within the state. The Court found that the Younger abstention applied and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. |
Case | |
| Vanater v. Village of South Point | 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989) |
Village criminal ordinance, which prohibited the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers or other vicious dogs within village limits, was not overbroad, even though identification of a "pit bull" may be difficult in some situations, as there are methods to determine with sufficient certainty whether dog is a "pit bull.". |
Case | |
| WV - Racing - Article 23. Horse and Dog Racing | W. Va. Code, § 19-23-9 - 19-23-30 | WV ST § 19-23-9 - § 19-23-30 | This Act requires a license from the West Virginia Racing Commission in order to conduct horse or dog racing. Anyone who participates or has anything to do with dog racing or horse racing at a licensed track, such as employees and horse/dog owners, must have a permit from the commission. This Act allows for the West Virginia Racing Commission to continue its existence as a public corporation. The Commission has full jurisdiction over and must supervise all horse and dog race meetings and all persons involved in the holding or conducting of horse and dog race meetings. Each county that already permits horse racing must vote and approve dog racing in order for the Commission to issue a license for a racing facility. | Statute |
| Sentencia C-283, 2014 | Sentencia C-283/14 | This is an unconstitutionality claim against Articles 1º, 2º and 3º of Ley 1638, 2013 that prohibit the use of native and exotic wild animals in circuses. Plaintiffs argued that these Articles violated numerous provisions of the Constitution, including the right to work, right to choose a profession, rights to culture and recreation, and a violation to the freedom private initiative of the owners of the circuses. In decision C-283, the court held that Congress has the power to prohibit certain cultural manifestations that involve animal cruelty. The Court stated that “culture needs to be permanently reevaluated so it can adapt to human evolution, to guarantee of rights and the fulfillment of duties. Especially when the purpose is to eliminate the traces of a marginalized society that has excluded certain individuals and collectives.” The court also stated that the duty to protect animals is not absolute, as its application can be limited by values, principles and constitutional norms in specific cases that are contradictory to the principales. The judge must analyze each case under a reasonableness test, in a way that cultural manifestations can work harmoniously with the rights, principles, and duties established in the legal system. The Court held Article 1 of Ley 1638, 2013 constitutional, and refrains from deciding on the constitutionality of Articles 2 and 3, for lack of evidence to render a decision. | Case | |
| WI - Dangerous dog - 174.11. Claims for damage by dogs to domestic animals including ranch mink | W. S. A. 174.11 | WI ST 174.11 | This Wisconsin provides that the owner of any domestic animal, including a ranch mink, which is attacked, chased, injured or killed by a dog may, within 3 days after the owner has knowledge or notice thereof, file a written claim for damages with the clerk of the town, village or city in which the damage occurred. A hearing then occurs where witnesses may be subpoenaed under oath, and testimony relative to the claim is taken. The county board shall allow, as the amount of a claim for a domestic animal, including a ranch mink, injured by a dog, the amount determined to be the total of the costs resulting from the injury including a loss in fair market value but the total amount of the claim may not exceed the fair market value. | Statute |
| PA - Equine - Chapter 13. Equine Activity. | 4 P.S. § 601 - 607 | PA ST 4 P.S. § 601 - 607 | These statutes comprise Pennsylvania's Equine Activity Act, which sent into effect on February 21, 2006. Under the law, liability for negligence shall only be barred where knowing voluntary assumption of risk is proven in a particular case. However, the Act provides immunity only where a sign that states, "You assume the risk of equine activities pursuant to Pennsylvania law," is conspicuously posted on the premises in two or more locations. | Statute |
| SuiÁa | impetraram este HABEAS CORPUS REPRESSIVO, em favor da chimpanzÈ "SuiÁa" (nome cientifico anthropopithecus troglodytes), macaca que se encontra enjaulada no Parque Zoobot‚nico Get˙lio Vargas (Jardim ZoolÛgico de Salvador), situado na Av. Ademar de Barros | Case | ||
| Lockett v. Hill | 51 P.3d 5 (Or.App.,2002) | 182 Or.App. 377 (Or.App.,2002) |
In this Oregon case, plaintiff sued defendant after defendant's pit bulls mauled plaintiff's cat to death while they were running loose on plaintiff's property. The trial court found that defendant was negligent and awarded plaintiffs $1,000 in compensatory damages but denied plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship. Plaintiff sought appeal of the trial court's denial of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and loss of companionship. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the cat owner was not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress. |
Case |