Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kindel v. Tennis | 949 N.E.2d 1119 (Ill.App. 5 Dist., 2011) | 2011 WL 2083981 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.); 409 Ill.App.3d 1138 |
Plaintiff was an employee of a dairy farm owned by defendants. In 2007, he was injured by a bull owned and controlled by defendants while working on the defendants' farm . The Appellate Court disagreed with the lower court, finding that the employee's allegations were sufficient to support a claim against the farm owners under the Animal Control Act. The court found it was a question of fact whether it was plaintiff's job to care for the bull, and whether that animal was in the care and/or custody of plaintiff at the time of the injury. |
Case | |
| WI - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. A. 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | WI ST 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | These Wisconsin statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include dog licensing provisions, hunting laws impacting dogs, and seizure of dogs by humane officers. | Statute | |
| PA - Hunting - § 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2302 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2302 | This reflects Pennsylvania's hunter harassment law. It is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title. Violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree. A person adversely affected by prohibited activities may bring an action to restrain such conduct and to recover damages. | Statute | |
| Robertson v Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries | [2010] QCA 147 |
An Inspector of the RSPCA entered premises occupied by the respondent and seized 104 dogs under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 which were then forfeited to the state. These actions were confirmed when the respondent sought an administrative review of the decisions and leave to appeal was refused. The respondent sought to raise numerous grounds of appeal against the prior refusal of leave to appeal, however, the appeal was struck out. |
Case | ||
| Dufer v. Cully | 3 Or. 377 (1871) |
This case involved a plaintiff who sued for damages when a bull strayed into, or broke into the plaintiff's enclosures, and the plaintiff, with two other men, went to drive the bull away. The court held that the owner of a domestic animal is not generally liable for injuries resulting from the vicious disposition of the animal, unless he is chargeable with notice. |
Case | ||
| Carpenters Indus. Council v. Salazar | 734 F.Supp.2d 126 (D.D.C., 2010) | 2010 WL 3447243 (D.D.C.) |
Plaintiffs, Carpenters Industrial Council, among several, averred that the FWS, in designating the owl as a "threatened species," violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the ESA, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Defendant, the FWS, confess legal error as to the northern spotted owl’s 2008 Critical Habitat Designation and 2008 Recovery Plan and ask that the court: (1) remand and vacate the 2008 Designation; (2) remand the 2008 Plan; and (3) order the FWS to revise its recovery plan and, if necessary, thereafter complete a new critical habitat designation. First, as to Defendant’s request to remand the designation, the court held that it, in fact, has such authority to do so, and such action is moreover appropriate, since the Washington Oversight Committee erred in proffering "jeopardizing" advice to the FWS. However, as to the whether the 2008 Designation may be vacated, the court concluded that it lacked the authority to do so "at this stage of the litigation." As to whether the 2008 Recovery Plan may be vacated, the court held that, given the interconnectedness of the 2008 Designation and the 2008 Plan, remand is appropriate. |
Case | |
| Matter of Ware | --- P.3d ----, 2018 WL 3120370 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2018) | No. 50285-2-II | After the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office's decided not to issue charges in an animal abuse case, two private citizens sought to independently initiate criminal charges. One person filed a petition for a citizen's complaint in district court and, after that was denied, another person filed a petition to summon a grand jury. On appeal, those appellants argue that the lower court erred in not granting their petitions. The animal cruelty claim stems from an incident in 2016, where a woman filed a report with police stating that a neighbor had killed her mother's cat by throwing a rock at the cat and stabbing it with a knife. Witnesses gave similar account of the abuse of the cat by the neighbor. The responding police officer then determined that there was probable cause to arrest the suspect for first degree animal cruelty. The officer found the cat's body and photographed the injuries, although the officer could not determine whether the cat had been stabbed. Subsequently, the prosecuting attorney's office declined to file charges because the actions related to the animal's death were unclear. Additionally, the cat's body was not collected at the scene to sustain a charge. | Case | |
| Wilson v. City of Eagan | 297 N.W.2d 146 (Minn., 1980) |
At issue is an Eagan, Minnesota ordinance that provides an impounded animal must be held for five days before being destroyed. In direct contravention of the ordinance and statute, Eagan animal warden Cary Larson and police officer Robert O'Brien, in performance of their duties, intentionally killed Timothy Wilson's pet cat on the same day it was properly impounded. By first finding that punitive damages were not precluded by statute against municipal employees, the court then examined whether punitive damages were appropriate in this case. While the court did not find that Larson acted with malice, it did find that his conduct in violating the statute showed a willful disregard for property rights. |
Case | ||
| KS - Exotic Pets - 115-20-3 Exotic Wildlife; Possession, Sale and Requirements. | KS ADC 115-20-3 | K.A.R. 115-20-3 | This regulation covers the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife. | Administrative | |
| AK - Exotic Pets - 5 AAC 92.030. Possession of wolf and wild cat hybrids prohibited. | 5 AK ADC 92.030 | 5 AAC 92.030 | This Alaska regulation makes it unlawful to possess, sell, purchase, or transfer a wolf or wild cat hybrid without a permit. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the person possessed the animal as a pet before July 23, 2002 in the case of a wolf-dog hybrid and followed other listed actions. A wild cat hybrid is defined as the mating of a domestic cat with a wild cat or hybrid that is of four generations or less wild cat. It is an affirmative defense to illegal possession of a wild cat hybrid when the owner shows proof of the pedigree showing the previous four generations or the animal is at least four generations removed from a wild ancestor. | Administrative |