Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barber v. Pennsylvania Dept. Agriculture | Slip Copy, 2010 WL 1816760 (W.D.Pa.) |
The plaintiffs in this Pennsylvania case are owners and operators of a non-profit animal rescue and kennel that houses housing about 500 dogs doing business in and throughout Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The current dispute stems from a series of inspections of the kennels that occurred throughout the 2007 calendar year. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and that the PSPCA and the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement (the inspection branch of the Dept. of Agriculture) failed to take reasonable steps to protect them from the conspiratorial activity in violation of 42 U.S .C. § 1986. Plaintiffs also state that the PSPCA and the Bureau violated various of their constitutional rights in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs also seek to hold the Defendants liable for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S .C. § 1983. Finally, other counts allege that Defendant Delenick sexually harassed Plaintiff Rachel Lappe-Biler in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; that plaintiff Pauline Gladys Bryner-Lappe was assaulted and battered in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment; and that the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. |
Case | |||||||
| CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL DISTRITO FEDERAL - Ciudad de Mexico | Criminal Code - Mexico City | Animal cruelty against any animal is considered a crime Under the Criminal Code of Mexico City since 2014. Chapter IV contains the provisions regarding the crimes committed by acts of cruelty or mistreatment against non-human animals. Article 350 BIS establishes that whoever intentionally mistreats or cruelly acts against any specimen of any animal species causing injury, damage, or alteration in their health will be punished with one to up to three years of imprisonment and three hundred to five hundred times the Units of Measure and Update. In addition, intentional acts of cruelty or mistreatment that cause the death of an animal will be punished with imprisonment from two years to up to six years and six hundred to twelve hundred times the Units of Measure and Update. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 8 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis | 34 N.E.3d 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 3534886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | An eleven-year-old boy was at a YMCA camp when a pig—which had never injured anyone or exhibited any dangerous propensities—stuck its head between the bars of its pen and grabbed the boy's hand, causing injuries. The boy and his mother sued the camp, and the camp filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the camp. On appeal, the boy and his mother asked the court to change the standard for liability of owners of domestic animals to that of strict liability when the animal was not a cat or dog. Since the Indiana Supreme Court precedent was clear that this general rule applied to all domestic animals—and not just cats and dogs—the court declined their invitation to alter the standard. The trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the camp was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||||||
| AZ - Ordinances - Lawful presence on private property defined (dogs) | A. R. S. § 11-1026 | AZ ST § 11-1026 | This Arizona statute provides that a person is lawfully on a dog owner's property when he or she is there as an invitee or guest, or when in the performance of a duty imposed upon him by law of the state or United States, or by ordinances of a municipality in which such property is located. | Statute | ||||||
| Maryland General Laws Supplement 1890-1898: Cruelty to Animals | 1890 Md. Laws 142,198,340 | The Maryland General Laws supplement covers the additions to the Cruelty of Animals statutes for Maryland from 1890-1898. The amendments cover court procedure to implementation of specific laws for certain animals. | Statute | |||||||
| Nichols v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. | 407 F.Supp.2d 979 (S.D.Ill.,2006) |
A customer brought an action against Lowe's home improvement store to recover for injury sustained when a "wild bird" flew into the back of her head while she was shopping in the gardening area. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in making the premises safe and that the defendant did not warn customers that the birds were a dangerous condition on the premises. In granting the owner's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the store owner did not owe customer a duty under Illinois law to protect her from wild bird attack since attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Further, the store owner was not the "owner" or "keeper" of a "wild bird" within meaning of Illinois Animal Control Act. |
Case | |||||||
| Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp. | 169 F.Supp.2d 1133 (N.D. Ca., 2000) |
Tenant brought action under the Federal Fair Housing Act alleging that her landlord failed to reasonably accommodate her mental disability by refusing to allow her to keep companion animals in her rental unit. Tenant put forth evidence establishing that the animals lessened the effects of her mental disability by providing companionship. The housing authority argued that only service dogs are a reasonable accommodation. The court rejected the housing authority's argument, holding that animals other than service animal can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Also, the court noted that whether an accommodation is reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry, requiring an analysis of the burdens imposed on the housing authority and the benefits to the disabled person. |
Case | |||||||
| IN - Draught Animals - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO DRAUGHT AND PACK ANIMALS RULES, 1965 | Section 38 of the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1965, regulate the weights that cattle and horses can draw. The Rules also stipulate the conditions under which animals may not be allowed to draw vehicles or carry loads. The Rules also prohibit the use of spiked sticks and bits. | Statute | |||||||
| IL - Testing - 620/17.2. Cosmetic testing on animals | 410 I.L.C.S. 620/17.2 | IL ST CH 410 § 620/17.2 | This law from 2019 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There is an exception when an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority. | Statute |