Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| World Law |
The Animal Legal & Historical Center houses laws, cases, and scholarly discussions on animal law topics from across the globe. See the different ways to access materials from different countries and regions below. |
Policy | ||
| World Law Overview |
Animal law is an emerging topic around the world. The Animal Legal & Historical Center houses laws, cases, and scholarly discussions on animal laws topics from across the globe. There are numerous ways to get to materials from countries around the world. |
Basic page | ||
| Woudenberg v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 794 F.3d 595 (6th Cir., 2015) | 2015 WL 4503212 (6th Cir., 2015) | According to Department of Agriculture regulations promulgated under the federal Animal Welfare Act (with certain exceptions not applicable here), persons who were in the business of buying and selling dogs and cats (i.e. class B dealers) may not obtain dogs or cats from an individual donor “who did not breed and raise them on his or her premises.” Another provision required a dealer in such a case to “obtain [ ] a certification that the animals were born and raised on that person's premises.” The question in this case was whether there was a violation when the dealer obtained the required certification, but the certification was false. The regulatory language was clear that a dealer violated the law by obtaining a dog or cat from an individual donor who did not breed or raise it on the donor's premises and it was still a violation even when the dealer in good faith obtained certifications that the animals had been so bred and raised. The certification requirement was an enforcement mechanism for the prohibition, not an exception. The Department of Agriculture therefore properly entered a cease-and-desist order against the petitioner. | Case |
| WRIGHT v. CLARK | 50 Vt. 130 (1877) | 50 Vt. 130, 28 Am.Rep. 496 (1877) |
Defendant shot plaintiff’s hunting dog, and plaintiff sued for trespass. The dog was shot while in pursuit of a fox. Defendant shot at the fox, but accidentally hit the dog. The court held that, because the shooting was a voluntary act, he was liable for exemplary damages for “intentionally or wantonly” shooting the dog. |
Case |
| Wright v. Fish and Game Commission (unpublished) | 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8091 | 2003 WL 22007258 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) |
The California Court of Appeal upheld the state's Fish and Game Commission’s ferret ban against an equal protection challenge from a ferret owner. The owner argued that the ban discriminated between ferret owners and owners of other companion animals. However, the court found a rational relation between the ban and concerns about wildlife and human health (from attacks and from rabies). |
Case |
| Wright v. Schum | 781 P.2d 1142 (Nev.,1989) | 105 Nev. 611 89 A.L.R.4th 359 (Nev.,1989) |
In this Nevada case, an eleven-year-old boy who was a passerby was bitten by a dog. The jury found the owner liable, but trial court judge dismissed the landlord as a defendant. The Supreme Court found the landlord in this case could be liable under general tort obligations because he voluntarily undertook a duty to secure the neighborhood from harm by the dog after he made the tenant promise not to allow the dog outside unless chained. Thus, material questions of fact remained that precluded summary judgment as to whether the landlord breached his duty of care to the public where he allowed the tenant to remain with the dog and then failed to repair the gate that allowed the dog to escape and injure the plaintiff when it was left unchained. |
Case |
| Wrinkle v. Norman | 242 P.3d 1216 (Kan. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 4539371 (Kan.App.,2010), 44 Kan.App.2d 950 (2010) |
Wrinkle filed a negligence action against his neighbors (the Normans) after he sustained injuries on thier property. The injuries stemmed from an incident where Wrinkle was trying to herd cattle he thought belonged to the Normans back into a pen on the Normans' property. The lower court granted the Normans' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, this court found that the question comes down to Wrinkle's status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser) to determine the duty owed by the Normans. This Court found that the district court properly determined that Wrinkle was a trespasser. Finally, the court addressed the K.S.A. 47-123 claim as to whether the Normans are liable for their cattle running at large. The court found that Wrinkle could not meet the burden under the statute. |
Case |
| WV - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | W. Va. Code, § 5-15-1 to 9; § 19-20-2; § 5-11A-3, 5-11A-5; § 17-29-17 | WV ST § 5-15-1 to 9; WV ST § 19-20-2; WV ST § 5-11A-3, 5-11A-5; § 17-29-17 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| WV - Charleston - Chapter 10: Animals (Article IV. Urban Deer Management) | Code of the City of Charleston, West Virginia § 10-171 |
This Charleston, West Virginia ordinance allows a person to hunt deer within city limits, but only upon certain conditions. For instance, a person must obtain a permit from the city, must hunt only with a bow and arrow, and must hunt only on certain tracts of land—amongst other things—in order to be compliant with these provisions. A violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor and may result in fines ranging from $10 to $500, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. Additionally, a violation may suspend or revoke a person's hunting permit. |
Local Ordinance | |
| WV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W. Va. Code, § 7-10-1 to 5; W. Va. Code, § 61-8-19 to 23; W. Va. Code, § 19-33-1 - 5 | WV ST § 7-10-1 to 5; WV ST § 61-8-19 to 23; WV ST § 19-33-1 - 5 | These West Virginia statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. If any person cruelly mistreats, abandons or withholds proper sustenance, including food, water, shelter or medical treatment, necessary to sustain normal health and fitness or to end suffering or abandons any animal to die, or uses, trains or possesses any domesticated animal for the purpose of seizing, detaining or maltreating any other domesticated animal, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor. If any person intentionally tortures or maliciously kills an animal, or causes, procures or authorizes any other person to torture or maliciously kill an animal, he or she is guilty of a felony. The provisions of this section do not apply to lawful acts of hunting, fishing, trapping or animal training or farm livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife kept in private or licensed game farms if kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife or game farm production and management. The section also prohibits animal fighting, making it a felony if the animal is a dog or other fur-bearing animal ("canine, feline, porcine, bovine, or equine species whether wild or domesticated"), and a misdemeanor if not (i.e., cockfighting). | Statute |