Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Sego | 2006 WL 3734664 (Del.Com.Pl. 2006) (unpublished) |
Fifteen horses were seized by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) because the animals were in poor condition. The SPCA sent bills to the owners for feeding, upkeep, and veterinary care, but the owners did not pay the bills. After 30 days of nonpayment, the SPCA became the owners of the horses, and the prior owners were not entitled to get the horses back. |
Case | ||
| Stoffels v. Harmony Hill Farm | 2006 WL 3699549 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) |
An owner of a horse farm acquired a new horse that had only recently been broken in and got a woman with some health problems to ride the horse. The horse bucked and threw the defendant off the horse causing injury. The court held that even though riders assume the risk of most injuries, a horse owner can be liable for failure to take reasonable measures to match the rider to a suitable horse. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare Act | 7 USC §§ 2131 - 2160; 18 USC § 49 | 7 USCA §§ 2131 - 2160;18 USCA § 49 | The AWA is, in the main, a regulatory law that seeks to control who may possess or sell certain animals and the living conditions (for non-agricultural, domestic animals) under which the animals must be kept. The law provides for criminal penalties, civil penalties and revocation of permits for violations of the AWA. | Statute | |
| In re: PETER A. LANG, d/b/a SAFARI WEST | 57 Agric. Dec. 91 (1998) | 1998 WL 241639 (U.S.D.A.) | Proof of willfulness is not prerequisite to concluding that respondent violated Animal Welfare Act or assessing civil penalty or issuing cease and desist order. | Case | |
| Animal Wellness Action v. Soccer Wearhouse Inc | This complaint filed by plaintiffs Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy asks defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. to comply with existing California law. More specifically, it asks defendants to adhere to Penal Code section 653o (hereafter Section 653o), which prohibits the commercial importation, possession with intent to sell, and sale of products made with kangaroo parts. Through investigation and research, plaintiffs contend that defendants openly sell soccer cleats made of kangaroo leather, or “k-leather,” throughout California at defendants' various retail stores. According to plaintiffs, these stores make no attempt to hide the fact that these products contain kangaroo parts. Plaintiffs seek both a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as a permanent injunction, enjoining defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. and its representatives, co-conspirators, and all persons acting in concert with defendant or on its behalf, from selling or offering for sale kangaroo leather shoes. | Pleading | |||
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco | 758 F.Supp.2d 945 (N.D.Cal., 2010) | 2010 WL 5288188 (N.D.Cal.) |
In this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the court found that Defendants did not violate the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in failing to list the ribbon seal as threatened or endangered due to shrinking sea ice habitat essential to the species’ survival. Defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the impact of Russia’s commercial harvest on the ribbon seal was low, that 2050 was the “foreseeable future” due to uncertainty about global warming and ocean acidification farther into the future, or its choice of scientific and commercial data to use. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
|
Case | |
| AL - Disaster Planning - Emergency Support Function (ESF) # 16 Veterinarian Services and Animal Care | Alabama Emergency Operations Plan (2022) | : Alabama's Emergency Management Agency coordinates the Emergency Operations Plan, which contains Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 on Agriculture and Natural Resources. According to that ESF, "[t]he primary purpose of this ESF is to identify animal and agriculture needs in the aftermath of a disaster or emergency. This includes coordinating industry responses to emergencies and providing subject matter experts in all areas of agriculture. Providing necessary leadership and resources for sheltering of animals during times of disasters is another primary responsibility of this ESF, to include coordination with industry stakeholders and organizations that can provide support." | Administrative | ||
| Chiapas |
Chiapas is the only state in Mexico that has yet to establish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Chiapas has instead enacted the Wildlife Protection Law, which primarily emphasizes the protection and responsible use of "fauna" to ensure the welfare of both wild and domestic animals. |
Policy | |||
| Silver v. State | 23 A.3d 867 (Md. App., 2011) | 2011 WL 2437286 (Md. App., 2011); 420 Md. 415 (2011) |
Defendants were sentenced by the District Court after pleading guilty to one count of animal cruelty. After defendants were convicted in the Circuit Court, they petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court could order that defendants pay restitution for the euthanasia cost for the deceased horse, but it was beyond the court’s authority to order defendants pay restitution for costs of caring for the two surviving horses because defendants had not been convicted in those cases. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike officer's testimony for prosecutor's failure to provide the officer's written report prior to trial. Finally, photos and testimony regarding the surviving horses were “crime scene” evidence and not inadmissible “other crimes” evidence because the neglect of the surviving horses was part of the same criminal episode. |
Case | |
| MT - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare Act | Chapter 439, Act XXV |
The purpose of this Act is to establish and consolidate the protection of animals kept for work, sport, companionship, and food. The term "animal" is defined under the Act as ‘all living members of the animal kingdom, other than human beings, and includes free-living larval and, or, reproducing larval forms, but does not include foetal or embryonic forms.’ |
Statute |