Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DuBois v. Quilitzsch | 21 A.3d 375 (R. I. 2011) | 2011 WL 2517021 (R.I.) |
After a dog injured a city inspector during an inspection of a property, the inspector sued the homeowners. Inspector alleged strict liability, premises liability, and negligence. The Supreme Court entered summary judgment for the defendants on the premises-liability and negligence claims because the inspector failed to show that homeowners had knowledge of their dog's vicious propensities. These claims were subject to the common law one-bite rule (and not strict liability) because the injuries occurred within an enclosed area on the owner’s property. |
Case | |
| F. c/ Sieli Ricci, Mauricio Rafael s/ maltrato y crueldad animal | FUNDAMENTOS DE SENTENCIA Nº1927 | "Poli" was a mutt dog that was tied to the bumper of a car by the defendant and dragged at high speed for several miles. Poli sustained severe injuries as a result of being dragged by the car. After the incident, the defendant untied her and left on the road to die. The defendant was found guilty of the crime of animal cruelty, under "ley 14.346." the judge held that this law "protects animals as subjects of rights, and the defendant's conduct was not against an object or a "thing," but rather against a subject deserving of protection." The defendant was sentenced to 6 months of suspended imprisonment for the crime of "animal mistreatment and cruelty." In addition, the judge ordered the defendant to provide food weekly for the animals in A.M.P.A.R.A (The ONG that filed the police report), with the purpose of giving the defendant the opportunity to learn firsthand that “all animals in general, and dogs, in particular, are sentient beings, that have feelings, suffer, cry, and that their right to live, freedom, and integrity has to be respected…” this, with the purpose to prevent the defendant from committing animal cruelty crimes in the future. | Case | ||
| McPherson v. Schlemmer | 749 P.2d 51 (Mont. 1988) | 230 Mont. 81 (Mont. 1988) |
In McPherson v. Schlemer , plaintiff’s cows were killed by defendant when they wandered onto the highway. The court determined that damages were calculated at the present and future profits for fair market value. |
Case | |
| Summer Research Grant Application 2020 | Summer Research Grants: The Animal Legal & Historical Center is offering five $1,000 summer research grants for 2020. Under our grant program, students are assigned topics and they draft a paper for posting on the website along with relevant primary legal materials. The commitment is to a minimum of 100 hours to be completed before August 15, 2020. We will take applications from any student enrolled in an ABA US law school (or Canadian). Given the limited number of grants and the expected number of applications, those who have completed their second year of law school will be given a priority. See attached pdf file for more information on how to apply! | Policy | |||
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (cockfighting) | Proposition 201 (1998) | Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. The measure passed in 1998 with 68.1% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| WI - Trust - 701.0408 Trust care for an animal | W.S.A. 701.1110; 701.0402; 701.0408 | WI ST 701.1110; 701.0402; 701.0408 | This statute represents Wisconsin's pet trust law. The former law was not a specific pet trust law, but the new law is. The new provisions allows for a trust to be created for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. | Statute | |
| US - Service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities | 2008 WL 2413721 (F.R.) | CRT Docket No. 106; AG Order No. 2968-2008 |
The Department of Justice (Department) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in order to: Adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) that are "consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board" (Access Board); and perform periodic reviews of any rule judged to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of any significant regulatory action as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
|
Administrative | |
| University Towers Associates v. Gibson | 846 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 2007) | 18 Misc.3d 349, 2007 WL 4126442 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.), 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 27481 |
In this New York case, the petitioner, University Towers Associates commenced this holdover proceeding against the rent-stabilized tenant of record and various undertenants based on an alleged nuisance where the tenants allegedly harbored pit bulls. According to petitioner, the pit bull is an alleged “known dangerous animal” whose presence at the premises creates an threat. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that the landlord's notice of termination did not adequately apprise the tenant of basis for termination; further, the notice of termination and the petition in the holdover proceeding did not allege objectionable conduct over time by the tenant as was required to establish nuisance sufficient to warrant a termination of tenancy.
|
Case | |
| Siegel v. State | 635 S.W.3d 313 (Ark., 2021), reh'g denied (Jan. 13, 2022) | 2021 Ark. 228 (2021) | Defendant Karen Siegel was convicted of 31 misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty based on 31 breeding dogs that were seized from her home. At issue here on appeal by defendant is whether the underlying statutes that allows seizure of the animals, Arkansas Code Annotated sections 5-62-106 and 5-62-111, are constitutional. In addition, defendant argues that by not ordering return of the seized dogs to defendant and compensating defendant for her loss of property was error. The first circuit court criminal case was dismissed on speedy-trial grounds and that ruling was upheld in later appeal. The issues on the instant appeal relate to the status of the seized dogs. Siegel argues that the circuit court erred by not ordering the return of her seized property and also not assigning a value for the property that was destroyed or damaged. The court here looked at the language of the seizure statute and found that Siegel failed to post a bond to care for the dog as is contemplated by the statute. The statute provides no award of damages to a defendant and the county that seized the dog is not a party in the criminal action brought by the state. Thus, the lower court was correct in stating that Siegel's remedy was a separate civil action. As to Siegel's challenges to the constitutionality of those statutes, this court found the argument moot since review of the issue would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing controversy. The case was affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part. | Case | |
| Smith v. Kopynec | 119 So.3d 835 (La.App. 1 Cir.,2013) | 2012-1472 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/7/13) |
The plaintiff appeals the lower court's dismissal of her claims against defendant-landowners and their insurers. The plaintiff was injured (for the second time) by the defendant-landowners' son's pitbull while walking past their home. While it was undisputed that the landowners did not own the dog, the issue was whether they had a duty to prevent the attack via "custodial liability." Here, the defendant-landowners asserted that they thought the son had gotten rid of the dog after it was confiscated and quarantined by animal control after it first attacked the plaintiff. Thus, this court found that defendant-landowners did not know of the dog's presence on their property and affirmed the trial court's order of summary judgment. |
Case |