Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Com. v. Barnes | 427 Pa.Super. 326, 629 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.,1993) |
In this case, the defendants argued that the police powers granted to a private entity, the Erie Humane Society, was an improper delegation of government authority. On appeal, the defendants’ asserted several arguments including a claim that Pennsylvania’s delegation of government authority is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution The appeals court rejected each of defendants’ four arguments. Specifically, the court rejected defendants' assertion that the Erie Humane Society operates as "vigilantes," finding that the Society's actions are regulated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure with requirements of probable cause and the constraints of case law. |
Case | ||
| Dillon v. Greenbriar Digging Service | 919 So.2d 172 (Miss. 2005) |
In this Mississippi case, a horse owner brought negligence action against digging service when one of his horses was found dead near a trench dug by the service; the service refused to compensate owner for the value of his horse. The lower court found in favor of the digging service. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court, finding that the digging service used reasonable care in digging and filling of horse owner's trench. |
Case | ||
| AR - Lien - § 18-48-212. Sale proceeds and payments | A.C.A. § 18-48-212 | AR ST § 18-48-212 | All sales of livestock at public auction shall be for cash. The proceeds of the sale, after payments underlying debts, if any, shall, if the owners are absent or unknown, be deposited with the treasurer of the county where the sale takes place. These net proceeds shall be paid to the persons entitled to them when they properly establish ownership in, or lien upon, the livestock, either by claim of title or by claim of valid lien. | Statute | |
| MN - Disaster Planning - Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) | Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (2015) | The Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan contains references to both household pets and service animals. The plan defines "household pet" as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), or turtle that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes and can travel in commercial carriers and be housed in temporary facilities. Household pets do not include reptiles (except turtles), amphibians, fish, insects/arachnids, farm animals (including horses), and animals kept for racing purposes." | Administrative | ||
| MI - Impound - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Use of Dogs and Cats for Research. | MCL 287.388 | MI ST 287.388 | This Michigan statute provides that a dealer, a county, city, village, or township operating a dog pound or animal shelter shall not sell or otherwise dispose of a dog or cat within 4 days after its acquisition. If the dog or cat has a collar, license, or other evidence of ownership, the operator of the pound or shelter shall notify the owner in writing and disposition of the animal shall not be made within 7 days from the date of mailing the notice. | Statute | |
| GA - Dangerous Dog Ordinances - Chapter 8. Dogs | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-8-29 | GA ST § 4-8-29 | This Georgia statute states the standards and requirements for the control of dangerous dogs and vicious dogs; this statute also proscribes penalties for violations of these standards and requirements. For instance, a violation of this article is a misdemeanor of high and aggravated nature; repeated violations of this article is a felony. | Statute | |
| O'Rourke v. American Kennels (Unpublished Disposition) | 7 Misc.3d 1018(A) (N.Y. 2005) | 801 N.Y.S.2d 237 (Table), 2005 WL 1026955 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.), 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 50656(U) Unpublished Disposition |
In this highly entertaining Small Claims case, claimant seeks to recover the purchase price of her dog, Little Miss Muffet. The issue presented, in large part, concerns the dog's weight. Claimant contends that Muffet was supposed to be a "teacup dog." At eight pounds, she is well above the five pounds that is considered the weight limit for a "teacup" Maltese. Plaintiff paid an additional $1,000 above the standard $1,500 to purchase the smaller variety of Maltese. Plaintiff was awarded the differential in price, but not veterinary fees for a knee condition that developed after the warranty protections expired in the purchase agreement. |
Case | |
| McBride v. XYZ Ins. | 935 So.2d 326 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) | 2006 WL 1751771 (La.App. 2 Cir.), 41,129 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/28/06) |
In this Louisiana dog bite case, a guest individually and on behalf of child brought an action against the dog owner to recover for bites. The child's bites occurred while the guest and her child were visiting defendant's home after the child had been petting and hugging the dog (a fairly large Chow). The appellate court held that the adult guest's conduct of swatting the dog with a shoe after the dog had released the child's arm was not provocation and the defendant was strictly liable for the injuries. While the district court reasoned that the guest failed to use reasonable caution in reading the warning signs and provoked the dog by striking him after he had already released the child, this court found that the guest and her children entered the yard through the house, and she did not notice the signs. Moreover, both witnesses testified that events unfolded very fast; the record persuaded the court that Ms. McBride's conduct in swatting Smokey with a shoe was not an intentional provocation but a natural and inevitable reaction to seeing her child's arm in the dog's jaws. |
Case | |
| Dirty cages housing night monkeys used in malaria research | Slideshow Images | ||||
| United States v. Charette | Slip Copy, 2017 WL 1012974 (D. Mont. Mar. 15, 2017) |
In this case, Brian F. Charette filed an appeal after he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution for shooting and killing a grizzly bear in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Charette argued three issues on appeal: (1) that the trial court's denial of a jury trial violated his constitutional rights; (2) that the trial court erred in defining the elements of his charged offense; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying Charette's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court found that the trial court did not err in denying a jury trial because Charette’s offense was considered a petty offense because it carried a maximum sentence of six months. For all crimes that are considered petty offenses, the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury is not triggered. Lastly, the court addressed Charette’s Rule 29 motion which calls for an acquittal if the essential elements of the offense are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for someone to be convicted of knowingly taking an endangered species the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that: (1) the defendant knowingly killed the animal; (2) the animal was engendered; (3) the defendant had no permit to kill the animal; and (4) the defendant did not act in self-defense or defense of others. Charette argued that the government failed to prove that he did not have a permit to kill the grizzly bear. The court ultimately found that the government did prove this element on the basis that Charette told officers that he did not report shooting the bear because he did not want to deal with the “hassle.” The court found that it was reasonable to believe that had Charette had a permit to kill the grizzly bear, he would not have found reporting it to be a hassle and therefore the government sufficiently established this element. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision. |
Case |