Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Hatlewick | 2005 WL 1634309 (N.D., 2005) |
A man was charged with failing to maintain a proper fence to contain his cattle. Despite the man's efforts to fix the fence when notified his cattle had gone through it, the trial court found the man guilty on three counts of willfully permitting livestock to run at large. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conviction. |
Case | |
| McGraw v. R and R Investments, Ltd. | 877 So.2d 886 (Fl. 2004) |
Plaintiff was injured when she was thrown from defendant's horse. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed. The District Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of first impression, the defendant's failure to provide the statutorily required notice warning of its non-liability for injuries resulting from an inherent risks of equine activities disqualified the defendant from statutory immunity from civil liability for the injuries. Reversed and remanded. |
Case | |
| ME - Cruelty, reporting - § 3477. Persons mandated to report suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation | 22 M.R.S.A. § 3477 | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 3477 | This Maine statute lists the mandated reporters in the state who must immediately report known or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation, of an incapacitated or dependent adult. The statute also allows permissive reporting of animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect and allows animal control officers to make reports when necessary. | Statute |
| 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 |
| Criscuolo v. Grant County | 540 F.Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2013) | The plaintiff’s dog was shot by a police officer while eyewitnesses claim that right before he fired, the dog was stationary or retreating at a distance of 10-20 feet from the officer and his police K9. The pet owner filed suit against both the individual police officer and the municipality, who both claimed immunity, which was granted at the trial court. On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal of the municipality based on the fact that official policy did “not authorize unconstitutional conduct or give officers unbridled discretion to shoot any animal they encounter, even if it is not threatening.” However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision in regards to the officer’s immunity, holding that viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the killing was not necessarily reasonable to protect the officer’s safety or the safety of his police K9. | Case | |
| IA - Pet Shop - Chapter 162. Care of Animals in Commercial Establishments. | I. C. A. § 162.1 to 25 | IA ST § 162.1 to 25 | The purpose of this chapter is to insure that all dogs and cats handled by boarding kennels, commercial kennels, commercial breeders, dealers, and public auctions are provided with humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling, and treatment of such animals. | Statute |
| Com. v. Zalesky | 906 N.E.2d 349, (Mass.App.Ct.,2009) | 74 Mass.App.Ct. 908; 2009 WL 1351751 (Mass.App.Ct.) |
In this Massachusetts case, the defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, in violation of G.L. c. 272, § 77. On appeal, the defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt; specifically, that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions exceeded what was necessary and appropriate to train the dog. A witness in this case saw defendant beat his dog with a plastic "whiffle" bat on the head about 10 times. The defendant told the officer who arrived on the scene that he had used the bat on previous occasions, and did so to “put the fear of God in [the] dog.” At trial, a veterinarian testified that the dog suffered no trauma from the bat, but probably experienced pain if struck repeatedly in that manner. The court found that defendant's behavior fell under the ambit of the statutes because his actions were cruel, regardless of whether defendant viewed them as such. Judgment affirmed.
|
Case |
| In re: VOLPE VITO, INC., d/b/a FOUR BEARS WATER PARK AND RECREATION AREA | 56 Agric. Dec. 166 (1997) | 1997 WL 15684 (U.S.D.A.) | While corrections are to be encouraged and may be taken into account when determining sanction to be imposed, even immediate correction of violation does not operate to eliminate fact that violation occurred and does not provide basis for dismissal of alleged violation. | Case |
| OR - Testing, animal - 646A.009. Sale of cosmetics developed or manufactured | O.R.S. § 646A.005 - .028 | OR ST § 646A.005 - .028 | This Oregon chapter deals with animal testing in cosmetics. Under the chapter, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. Limited exceptions exist. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation this act incurs a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first day of the violation and not more than $1,000 for each day that the violation continues. | 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 |