Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK - Veterinary immunity - § 09.65.097. Civil liability for emergency veterinary care | AS § 09.65.097 | AK ST § 09.65.097 | This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct. | Statute |
| Ascencio v. ADRU Corporation | 2014 WL 204212 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d) |
A woman, who suffers from a disability that is accompanied by deep depression and anxiety, went to a fast food restaurant with her mother and her two service dogs. Upon entering the establishment, the employees refused to serve them, forced them to leave, and retaliated against them by calling the police and threatening them with arrest. The woman and her mother sued the fast food restaurant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related California statutes. When the fast food restaurant failed to file an answer, the court entered a default judgment against the fast food restaurant; awarded the plaintiffs with damages, court costs and attorney fees; and placed a permanent injunction against the fast food restaurant. |
Case | |
| Thomas v. Stenberg | 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 24 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) | 2012 WL 1925657 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.); 206 Cal.App.4th 654 |
While driving his motorcycle down a private road that had easement access, the plaintiff was injured by a charging cow. Arguing the defendant had a duty to warn of the presence of an unconfined and inherently dangerous animal, the plaintiff brought a negligence and a premise liability suit against the defendant. Upon appeal, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was negligent and that the defendant was strictly liable for the cow's actions; the court, therefore, ruled in favor of the defendant. |
Case |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE GUJARAT ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1972 | NO. 19 OF 1972 | This law, specific to the state of Gujarat in western India, prohibits animal sacrifice within the precincts of places of public religious worship. Persons are barred from performing, officiating at, or in any other manner participating in animal sacrifice—doing so would attract imprisonment or a fine. If the officer-in-charge of a police station finds that a sacrifice is about to be performed, they shall file a complaint in the court. On receiving this complaint, the court may issue an injunction prohibiting the sacrifice. | Statute | |
| Whaling in the Antarctic | Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan), 2010 Judgment. | In June 2010, Australia commenced proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Japan has continued an extensive whaling program in breach of its obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). At issue was the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed upon in the 1980s. According to Australia, though Japan claimed to be killing whales purely for scientific reasons, the true purpose of the program was commercial. Japan did not deny that it was killing whales in the Antarctic, but claimed instead that because the ICRW grants each nation state the right to issue licenses for scientific whaling as it sees fit, Japan’s whaling program was legal. The ICJ ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program was not actually for scientific whaling and must end. | Case | |
| Canada - Nova Scotia Statutes - Sheep Protection Act | R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 424, s. 1 - 18(4) | This set of Nova Scotia laws comprises the Sheep Protection Act. Under the Act, any person may kill any dog which is found pursuing, worrying, wounding, killing or injuring sheep or is found straying at any time, and not under proper control, upon premises where sheep are usually kept. Within forty-eight hours after an owner discovers that one or more of his or her sheep have been killed or injured by a dog or dogs, he or she shall notify a sheep valuer who immediately makes a report in writing giving in detail the extent and amount of the damage. Where a dog is known to have killed or injured sheep, the owner on being duly notified shall within forty-eight hours cause the dog to be killed. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. William | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4587250 (D.Virgin Islands) | Defendants charged with unlawfully taking an endangered species and unlawfully possessing, carrying and transporting an endangered species within the United States in violation of the Endangered Species Act filed motions to suppress all evidence, including undersized lobsters and a sea turtle seized in connection with their stop and arrest after they had been stopped on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. The District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix suppressed the evidence, finding that although the approaching police officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was taking place at the time the stop was made, the subsequent confinement of Defendants and search of their vehicle exceeded the limited purpose of the investigative stop. | Case | |
| United States v. Kum | 309 F.Supp.2d 1084 (E.D. Wis. 2004) |
Defendant convicted for conspiracy to smuggle endangered wildlife into the United States. Government moved for upward departure from sentencing range. Held: Court would not depart upward to reflect cruel treatment of animals (other holdings generally unrelated). |
Case |