Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. White | 508 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1974) |
Defendant was a member of a recognized Indian tribe who killed an eagle upon his reservation. The Court holds that it will not find an intent by Congress to abrogate Indian hunting rights under the BGEPA where the statute did not explicitly state that those rights were abrogated. For further discussion on abrogation of Indian treaty rights under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| Maldonado v. Franklin | Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2019 WL 4739438 (Tex. App. Sept. 30, 2019) | Trenton and Karina Franklin moved into a subdivision in San Antonio, Texas in September of 2017. Margarita Maldonado lived in the home immediately behind the Franklins’ house and could see into the Franklins’ backyard. Maldonado began complaining about the Franklins’ treatment of their dog. The Franklins left the dog outside 24 hours a day, seven days a week no matter what the weather was like. Maldonado also complained that the dog repeatedly whined and howled which kept her up at night causing her emotional distress. Maldonado went online expressing concern about the health and welfare of her neighbor’s dog, without naming any names. Mr. Franklin at some point saw the post and entered the conversation which lead to Mr. Franklin and Maldonado exchanging direct messages about the dog. Maldonado even placed a dog bed in the backyard for the dog as a gift. In December of 2017, the Franklins filed suit against Maldonado for invasion of privacy by intrusion and seclusion alleging that Maldonado was engaged in a campaign of systemic harassment over the alleged mistreatment of their dog. While the suit was pending, Maldonado contacted Animal Control Services several times to report that the dog was outside with the heat index over 100 degrees. Each time an animal control officer responded to the call they found no actionable neglect or abuse. In June of 2018, Maldonado picketed for five days by walking along the neighborhood sidewalks, including in front of the Franklins’ house, carrying signs such as “Bring the dog in,” and “If you’re hot, they’re hot.” The Franklins then amended their petition adding claims for slander, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. The trial court granted a temporary injunction against Maldonado, which was ultimately vacated on appeal. Maldonado filed a Anti-SLAPP motion and amended motion to dismiss the Franklins’ claims as targeting her First Amendment rights. The trial court did not rule on the motions within thirty days, so the motions were denied by operation of law. Maldonado appealed. The Court began its analysis by determining whether Maldonado’s motions were timely. Under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (TCPA) a motion to dismiss must be filed within sixty days of the legal action. The sixty-day deadline reset each time new factual allegations were alleged. Due to the fact that the Franklins had amended their petition three times and some of the amended petitions did not allege any new factual allegations, the only timely motions that Maldonado filed were for the Franklins’ claims for slander and libel. The Court then concluded that Maldonado’s verbal complaints to the Animal Control Service and online posts on community forums about the Franklins’ alleged mistreatment of their dog were communications made in connection with an issue related to a matter of public concern and were made in the exercise of free speech. Therefore, the TCPA applied to the Franklins’ slander and libel claims. The Court ultimately concluded that although Maldonado established that the TCPA applied to the slander and libel claims, the Franklins met their burden to establish a prima facie case on the slander and libel claims. Therefore, the Court ultimately concluded that Maldonado’s motion to dismiss the slander and libel claims were properly denied. The Court affirmed the trial court’s order and remanded the case to the trial court. | Case | ||
| Granger v. Folk | 931 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App. 1996). |
The State allows for two methods of protecting animals from cruelty: through criminal prosecution under the Penal Code or through civil remedy under the Health & Safety Code. |
Case | ||
| Savory v. Hensick | 143 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. 2004) |
Contractor brought a premises liability action against homeowners after falling over their dog. Contractor was descending from a ladder while working on homeowners' premises and stepped on the dog at the base of the ladder. The trial court held in favor of the contractor because the homeowners' dog made the yard foreseeably dangerous and the appellate court affirmed. |
Case | ||
| Sentencia C-439, 2011 | Sentencia C-439, 2011 | This is an unconstitutionality claim against Article 87 of Ley 769, 2002 (Trafic Code), relating the transportation of animals on vehicles of public transportation. Article 87 of Ley 769, established that only guide dogs could travel in this type of transportation when accompanying a blind person. The Plaintiff argued that this Article, which prohibited the transportation of animals on vehicles like buses and taxis, violated the right to equality, rights to personal and family privacy, right to free development of personality, freedom of locomotion, and private property. The court concluded that there was a violation to the right to free development of personality, freedom to locomotion, and to private property of the owners of domestic animals. The court added domestic animals as an exception to article 87, of Ley 769, meaning that this prohibition still remains for specimens of the wild fauna. Domestic animals now can travel on vehicles of public transportation, so long they are transported in conditions of health, safety, comfort and tranquility according to the applicable rules. The court also considered that a pertinent regulation was necessary to establish the requirements to transport animals on public vehicles. | 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 | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing the Eastern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Gray Wo | RIN 1018-AJ03 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that we will hold one additional public hearing on the proposed rule to remove the Eastern Distinct Population Segment of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In a notice made in the Federal Register on August 13, 2004 (69 FR 50147), we announced the locations for nine other public hearing previously scheduled. |
Administrative | ||
| 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 | |
| IL - Cruelty, reporting - 5/11.8. Cross-reporting | 325 I.L.C.S. 5/11.8 | IL ST CH 325 § 5/11.8 | This Illinois law states that Investigation Specialists, Intact Family Specialists, and Placement Specialists employed by the Department of Children and Family Services who reasonably believe that an animal observed by them when in their professional or official capacity is being abused or neglected in violation of the Humane Care for Animals Act must immediately make a written or oral report to the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Animal Health and Welfare. | 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 |