Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport | Amendments to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport. The amendments are mainly procedural rather than substantive. | Treaty | ||
| AL - Public Nuisances - Chapter 10. Nuisances Menacing Public Health | Ala. Code 1975 § 22-10-1 to 3 | AL ST § 22-10-1 to 3 | This set of laws lists various animal-related actions and conditions that are considered nuisances per se because of their significant public health risks. In addition, it addresses the methods by which such nuisances may be abated, up to and including the destruction of property without compensation. | Statute |
| Animal Law Review Vol 12 Table of Contents |
|
Policy | ||
| Fuller v. Vines | 36 F3d 65 (9th Cir. 1994) |
Motion for leave to amend § 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun. |
Case | |
| Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law |
Biodiversity, Species Protection, and Animal Welfare Under International Law, Guillaume Futhazar, MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2018-22 (2018). |
Policy | ||
| Hairston v. Burger King Corp. | 764 So.2d 176 (La.App. 2 Cir.,2000) |
Louisiana appeals court affirmed trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to adequately link her stomach ailment with a burger purchased from Burger King and thus could not sustain an action that sought recovery of alleged damages suffering due to food poisoning. |
Case | |
| Dutka v. Cassady | 2012 WL 3641635 (Not Reported in A.3d) | 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1901 | A rescue organization had adopted out a dog. The new owners were walking the dog unleashed when it attacked another dog. The plaintiff's filed a complaint of common law negligence and recklessness, which alleged that the rescue organization should have known and should have warned them of the dangerous tendencies of the specific dog but failed to do so. Connecticut law imposed strict liability on an owner or keeper of such an animal, and the statute had not been expanded to include the seller or transferor. The issue then was whether the court should expand the scope of such a negligence claim and create a duty of care owed by transferors or sellers of dogs with known and/or unknown propensities for aggression. The court found that there was no support for expanding liability in common law negligence when the organization in this case did not own, possess, harbor or control the dog. The court declines to impose a duty on the rescue agency to inform adoptive families. | Case |
| In re: JULIAN J. TONEY AND ANITA L. TONEY | 54 Agric. Dec. 923 (1995) | 923, 1995 WL 785952 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $200,000.00 (largest civil penalty ever imposed under Act) was appropriate, where degree of willfulness and flagrancy of respondents' violations was astonishing, and even after hearing was pending on initial complaint, respondents continued to violate Act. | Case |
| VT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 13 V.S.A. § 351 - 400; 20 V.S.A. § 2365b; 24 V.S.A. § 1943 | VT ST T. 13 § 351 - 400; VT ST T. 20 § 2365b; VT ST T. 24 § 1943 | This Vermont statutory section contains the amended anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. Animal cruelty, as defined by § 352, occurs when a person overworks, overloads, tortures, torments, abandons, administers poison to, cruelly beats or mutilates an animal, or deprives an animal which a person owns or possesses of adequate food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, or necessary medical attention. It is also animal cruelty if one owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting. The section excludes scientific research activities, hunting, farming, and veterinary activities among others. | Statute |
| CR - Fighting - Prohíbe Espectáculos e Importar Animales Pelea (Pit Bull, Peces Beta) | 11571-G |
(Text of Decree in Spanish). Prohibir en todo el territorio nacional la organización, promoción y realización de todo acto cuyo objetivo sea total o parcialmente la pelea entre animales, como por ejemplo perros APTB (American pit bul terrier), peces siameses (Beta) y cualquier otro tipo de animal normalmente reconocido como apto para pelear. |
Statute |