Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJ - Hunting - 23:4-24.5. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited; definitions; exception for certain hunters | N. J. S. A. 23:4-24.5 | NJ ST 23:4-24.5 | This New Jersey law prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting or providing or operating facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting in the State. | Statute | |
| Nationwide Horse Carriers, Inc. v. Johnston | 519 S.W.2d 163 (Tex.,1974) |
A pregnant mare was injured during transport and lost her foal. The owner sued carrier for damages. The Court of Civil Appeals held that horse owner was not entitled to recover damages for loss of mare’s unborn foal; that award for mare's diminished ability to produce healthy foals was excessive in light of fact that she subsequently produced a foal that survived; and that horse owner was not entitled to attorney fees since the horse was considered freight. |
Case | ||
| Harabes v. Barkery, Inc. | 791 A.2d 1142 (N.J.Super.L., 2001) | 348 N.J.Super. 366 (2001) |
Plaintiffs claim their pet dog, Gabby, died of medical complications after she was negligently subjected to extreme heat for an extended period of time at The Barkery, a dog grooming business. The Court observed that there is no New Jersey precedent permitting a pet owner to recover non-economic damages when a pet is negligently injured or killed; therefore, the court looked policy and rationale which underlies similar cases in this and other jurisdictions. The Court concluded that the difficulty in quantifying the emotional value of a companion pet and the risk that a negligent tortfeasor will be exposed to extraordinary and unrealistic damage claims weighed against allowing damages. Most significantly, the court found that public policy mitigated against allowing emotional distress and loss of companionship damages, which are unavailable for the loss of a child or spouse, for the loss of a pet dog. |
Case | |
| Colombia - Animal control - LEY 1753 DE 2015 | LEY 1753 DE 2015 | This law adopts the National Development Plan for 2014-2018, denominated “All for a new country." Article 248 states: “Public policy in defense of animal rights and/or animal protection. The national government will promote public policies and governmental actions in which the rights of animals and/or animal protection are promoted and promulgated. To accomplish this goal, the national government will work in coordination with social organizations of animal defense to design policies where concepts, institutional powers, conditions, aspects, limitations and specifications on animal care regarding the reproduction, possession, adoption, production, distribution, and commercialization of domestic animals not suitable for reproduction will be established. The territorial and decentralized entities will be responsible for monitoring, controlling, and promoting respect for animals and their physical and mental integrity.” | Statute | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 17, Part 2 |
Animal Law Review Volume 17, Issue 2 (Spring 2011)
|
Policy | |||
| MS - Wildlife, Bounty - Chapter 5. Health, Safety and Public Welfare. In General. | Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-51 | MS ST § 19-5-51 | This Mississippi law provides that any board of supervisors may, by appropriate resolution offer a bounty not to exceed $5.00 for each nutria, beaver or bobcat destroyed, where the board determines that nutria, beaver or bobcats are in such quantities that the preservation of trees is at issue. The The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks will issue a $5 bounty upon the presentation of the tail of any beaver. | Statute | |
| Carver v. Ford | 591 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1979) |
The owners rented a stall from the tort victim for their heifer. The heifer escaped into the yard and crashed into a gate whereupon the gate then hit the tort victim in the mouth and broke several teeth. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the heifer was not running at large, that the heifer escaped from its stall through no fault of the owners, that strict liability for trespass under Okla. Stat. tit. 4. sec. 98 (1965) was not applicable, and that any liability of the owners was required to be predicated upon negligence. |
Case | ||
| People v. Olary (On Appeal) | 170 N.W.2d 842 (Mich. 1969) | 382 Mich. 559 (Mich. 1969) |
Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of cruelty to animals. Specifically, defendant argued that the Court of Appeals erroneously upheld the conviction because of his inattention to the condition of the cows and failure to provide medical treatment, when such action or failure to act was not punishable under the anti-cruelty statute. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of cruelty to animals because as a farmer, defendant could have realized that his conduct was cruel. |
Case | |
| NY - Endangered Species - Part 182. Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife | 6 NY ADC 182..1 - .17 | 6 NYCRR 182.1 - .17 | This set of New York regulations concerns endangered, threatened, and species of special concern. Section 182.5 provides a list of native species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Under Section 182.7, the department may issue a license to a person to transport, sell, import and/or possess a listed species for purposes it deems legitimate. | Administrative | |
| ND - Vehicle - § 39-08-19. Penalty for harassment of domestic animals | NDCC 39-08-19 | ND ST 39-08-19 | This North Dakota statute states that any person operating a motorcycle, snowmobile, or other motor vehicle who willfully harasses or frightens any domestic animal, is, upon conviction, guilty of a class B misdemeanor and is also liable for the value of the animal and exemplary damages. | Statute |