Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Britton v. Bruin | Not Reported in P.3d, 2016 WL 1019213 (N.M. Ct. App., 2016) | 2016 WL 1019213 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2016) | In this case, plaintiff appealed a decision by the district court denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiff petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to stop the City of Albuquerque's effort to control a large population of feral cats in its metropolitan area by “trapping, neutering them, and then returning them” to the location at which they were found. The district court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because the court held that there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Also, the court held that because the city’s program did not result in any unconstitutional action, the writ of mandamus was not appropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling, looking only at whether or not there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” The court did not address the issue of whether or not the city’s population control effort was appropriate and should continue. The district court's order denying Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is affirmed. | Case | |
| British Game Law | Matthew Bacon | Bouvier's Edition |
A full explaination of the laws of game for the British. 1800-1850 with notes from US experience. |
Article | |
| Brisson v. These Guys New York Deli Corp. | Not Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2023 WL 370990 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 20, 2023) | The Superior Court of Connecticut considers defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress arising from the death of their pet dog. Plaintiffs argue that previous Connecticut case law (Myers v. Hartford, 84 Conn. App. 395) left open the question of whether courts could consider a claim for emotional distress damages due to the loss of a pet. The incident giving rise to the litigation occurred in 2021, where a driver for the defendants' company ran over plaintiffs' pet dog while making a delivery. The complaint states that one of the plaintiffs directly witnessed the driver speed down the driveway and kill the dog by dragging. The court began its analysis by first observing a dog is chattel and is unambiguously defined as personal property in the state. Myers left often the issue of recovery of damages when a "bystander" owner witnesses a "fatal injury." The court then examined the factors articulated by the Connecticut Supreme Court for recovery of emotional damages by a bystander. In doing so, the court here determined that the relationship between a pet and its owner does not meet the "closely related" element articulated by the Supreme Court. The court stated: "Absent appellate clarification that this factor includes other relationships, including the one at issue here between a pet owner and pet, this court cannot conclude that such a relationship is sufficiently like the close human relationships required under Clohessy." The court noted that it agreed with defendants that allowing plaintiffs' claim would amount to creating a new cause of action without legislative or appellate authority. Defendants' motion to strike was granted. | Case | ||
| Brinton v. Codoni | Not Reported in P.3d, 2009 WL 297006 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2009) |
This unpublished Washington case stems from an attack on plaintiff's dog by a neighbor's dog. Plaintiff sued for damages, alleging negligence and nuisance. The trial court ruled on partial summary judgment that the plaintiff's damages were limited, as a matter of law, to the dog's fair market value. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to damages based on the dog's intrinsic value (i.e., utility and service and not sentimental attachment) and her emotional distress. On appeal, this court held that since the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that her dog had no fair market value, the trial court properly limited damages to that value. Further, because the plaintiff's nuisance claims were grounded in negligence, she was not entitled to damages beyond those awarded for her negligence claim. |
Case | ||
| Brinkley v. County of Flagler | 769 So. 2d 468 (2000) |
Appellee county sought to enjoin appellant from mistreating animals by filing a petition against her under Fla. Stat. ch. 828.073 (1997). The animals on appellant's property were removed pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 828.073, a statute giving law enforcement officers and duly appointed humane society agents the right to provide care to animals in distress. The entry onto appellant's property was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement for searches. The hearing after seizure of appellants' animals was sufficient to satisfy appellant's due process rights. |
Case | ||
| Brief Summary: The Licensing and Regulation of Pet Shops (U.K.) | Alan Bates | Animal Legal and Historical Center |
This document provides an overview of the UK's Pet Animals Act of 1951. The Act establishes a regulatory regime for “pet shops” under which local authorities (district and borough councils) are responsible for inspecting and licensing premises. |
Article | |
| Brief Summary of Wildlife Services | Rachel Pemberton | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This summary describes the role and function of Wildlife Services within the USDA. It describes management practices, both lethal and non-lethal as well as the concerns that have been raised with respect to WS methods. | Article | |
| Brief Summary of Wildlife Rehabilitation Laws | Angela Nicole Johnson | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article presents a brief summary of the laws affecting wildlife rehabilitators. Wildlife rehabilitators care for orphaned and/or injured wildlife with the goal of returning animals back into their native habitat. Although a rehabilitator’s focus is on the care of wildlife, rehabilitators necessarily spend time complying with local, state, and federal laws, fundraising activities, coordinating volunteers, and educating the public about wildlife. |
Article | |
| Brief Summary of Whaling | Tom Krepitch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | Early in the twentieth century, the technology used in whaling advanced so significantly that the global whale population became threatened. Efforts to decrease the number of whales killed grew after World War II and resulted in a major victory in the 1980s when commercial whaling was banned. However, this ban is still a major source of controversy as Japan continues to kill hundreds of whales each year in the Antarctic under what it calls a scientific whaling exception, but Australia labels as mere cover for a commercial whaling program. | Article | |
| Brief Summary of Welfare Standards for Animals Used in Zoos and Exhibition | Tala M. DiBenedetto | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This brief summary explores laws regulating zoos and other animal exhibitions. Zoos, aquariums, and animal sanctuaries are subject to federal, state, and local laws. On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act and Endangered Species Act protect captive animals at these facilities. However, these statutes only provide minimal welfare requirements and are limited in terms of scope and enforcement. Beyond these federal laws, there are laws that protect specific species and states have adopted their own laws further regulating possession and exhibition of wild animals. In addition to increased regulation, there have been a number of organizations offering accreditation for exhibiting facilities, holding these facilities to a higher standard of animal welfare than the minimum requirements set out by federal laws like the Animal Welfare Act. | Article |