Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roman v. Carroll | 621 P.2d 307 (Ariz.App., 1980) |
The question on this appeal is whether a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress she suffered from watching defendants' St. Bernard dismember plaintiff's poodle while she was walking the dog near her home. Relying on a case that allowed damages for emotional distress suffered from witnessing injury to a third person, plaintiff contended that her relationship with her poodle was a close one within the confines of that case. However, the court summarily denied her claim, holding that a dog is personal property and damages are not recoverable for negligent infliction of emotional distress from witnessing injury to property. |
Case | |
| Brockett v. Abbe | 206 A.2d 447 (Conn.Cir.A.D. 1964) | 206 A.2d 447 |
Defendant-farmer filed a counterclaim for damages for the erroneous determination by the veterinarian that certain cow was not pregnant (plaintiff veterinarian used a "punch test" - where a fist is struck against the abdomen of a cow to determine pregnancy rather than the industry-standard rectal examination). As a result, defendant-farmer sold the cow for $170 versus the $550 he could have received for a pregnant cow. The Court found that it was erroneous for the circuit court to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, as diagnoses and scientific treatment are improper subjects for the doctrine. The mere proof that the diagnosis later on turned out to be erroneous is insufficient to support a judgment, the court stated. |
Case |
| England and Wales - Hunting, mammals - Hunting Act 2004 | 2004 CHAPTER 37 | An Act controlling the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and prohibiting hare coursing. The hare coursing prohibition covers facilitating, attending, spectating or otherwise. Schedule 1 of the Act provides for exemptions to hunting wild mammals with dogs, to include: stalking, or flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that this is done to prevent or reduce potential damage elsewhere, for example to livestock or crops; to obtain meat for human or animal consumption or; participation in a field trial competition. For this hunting to be exempt, the stalking or flushing must not involve more than two dogs, or take place on land without the owner’s permission. Further exemption requirements are that one dog may go below ground only, to flush or dig out the mammal in circumstances where the purpose is to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds. Further, conditions require that the mammal must subsequently be shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed. Other exceptions include the hunting of rabbits or rats with dogs. | Statute | |
| New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Farmer Boy AG, Inc. | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 33125128 (S.D.Ind.) |
Lightning struck a hog breeding facility, which disabled the ventilation system and killed pregnant sows. Plaintiff Insurance Company sued defendant for damages. The Court held that evidence of damages relating to the lost litters and subsequent generations was excluded because damages for future unborn litters are not recoverable when damages are recovered for the injury to or destruction of the pregnant sows. |
Case | |
| Ott v. Pittman | 463 S.E.2d 101 (S.C.App.,1995) | 320 S.C. 72 (1995) |
In this South Carolina case, a dog owner brought a negligence action against a hog farmer who shot two of the owner's champion "Treeing Walker Coonhound" dogs. The farmer counterclaimed, alleging damages for the dogs' action and malicious prosecution. The lower court ordered judgment for the dogs' owner (Ott) in the amount of $19,800, finding Pittman 90% liable. On the farmer's appeal, this court upheld the $19,800 award, finding sufficient support based on expert testimony about the specific qualities of the breed. |
Case |
| Kleppe v. New Mexico | 426 U.S. 529 (1976) |
The state of New Mexico challenged the constitutionality of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act after they were ordered by the U.S. government to recover several wild horses they had rounded up from public lands within their state and sold at auction in violation of the WFRHBA. The Supreme Court upheld the Act, finding it to be a valid exercise of federal power under the Article IV Property Clause of, which gave Congress the power to protect wildlife on state lands, state law notwithstanding. |
Case | |
| NC - Lien - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations. | N.C.G.S.A. § 90-187.7 | NC ST § 90-187.7 | This North Carolina statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding or other care, unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than 10 days after written notice by registered or certified mail, shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society, or dog pound or disposed of as such custodian may deem proper. The giving of proper notice relieves such custodian of liability resulting from the disposal. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Lopez (Abridged for Purposes of Eagle Topic Area) | 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995) |
Laws governing intrastate activities will be upheld if they substantially affect interstate commerce. Under the Eagle Act, the power to regulate eagles has been summarily upheld as a valid exercise of commerce power, as it protects the eagle as a species by preventing the creation of a legal commercial market for the animal. For further discussion of the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | |
| United States v. Gideon | United States v. Gideon, 1 Minn. 292 (1856). |
The Defendant was convicted in the District Court of Hennepin county for the unlawfully malice killing of a dog. The Defendant appealed the descision to the Supreme Court of Minnesota to determine whether a dog has value and thus would be cover by the Minnesota cruelty to animal statute. The Supreme Court of Minnesota found that a dog has no value and would not be covered by the statute. |
Case | |
| IL - Lein - 40/50. Agisters | 770 I.L.C.S. 40/50 | IL ST CH 770 § 40/50 | Agisters and persons keeping, yarding, feeding or pasturing domestic animals, shall have a lien upon the animals agistered, kept, yarded or fed, for the proper charges due for the agisting, keeping, yarding or feeding thereof. | Statute |