Results
Displaying 5971 - 5980 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens to End Animal Suffering and Exploitation v. The New England Aquarium | 836 F. Supp. 45 (1993) |
The primary issue addressed by the court was whether a dolphin, named Kama, had standing under the MMPA. The court found the MMPA does not authorize suits brought by animals; it only authorizes suits brought by persons. The court would not impute to Congress or the President the intention to provide standing to a marine mammal without a clear statement in the statute. |
Case | ||
| Código Penal para el Estado de Querétaro | Código Penal para el Estado de Querétaro | Queretaro's Criminal Code was enacted in 1987. Chapter II, articles 189 – 190 TER of this code regulates the crime of rustling and imposes up to 16 years of imprisonment on whoever commits this crime. Title VII talks about crimes against the environment and animals. Article 246-D BIS imposes 6 to 12 months of jail time to those who, with or without intention, commit acts of mistreatment against domestic animals or wild animals, causing them injuries, together with monetary fines and 90 days of community work. However, if any of the conducts mentioned above endangers the life of the animal or the functioning of their vital organs, the punishment imposed will be increased to up to 4 years, monetary fines, and 150 days of community work. If the animal dies, the punishment will be up to 7 years, monetary fines, and 1000 days to improve daily coexistence. One noteworthy aspect of this state is that even though the penalties imposed are some of the higher ones in the country, the law does not define welfare, cruelty, or mistreatment. Moreover, this code does not proscribe actions such as neglect, abandonment, or sexual conduct towards animals. | Statute | ||
| Naruto v. Slater (PETA) | This complaint addresses what has come to be known as the "Monkey Selfie" case. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA) and Antje Engelhardt, Ph.D., as Plaintiff's next friends, filed this lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff Naruto, a six-year-old male member of the Macaca nigra species (also known as a crested macaque) who lives in the Tangkoko Reserve on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia. In 2011, Naruto took a number of photographs of himself, including one that became famous as the “Monkey Selfie.” In 2014, Defendant Slater and Defendant Blurb, Inc. published and sold a book in the United States that contained copies of the Monkey Selfies and stated in that book that Slater and Defendant Wildlife Personalities, Ltd. are the copyright owners of the Monkey Selfies. In this complaint, PETA contends that the Monkey Selfies "resulted from a series of purposeful and voluntary actions by Naruto, unaided by Slater, resulting in original works of authorship not by Slater, but by Naruto." Thus, according to PETA, Naruto has rights to the Monkey Selfies and owns that copyright. PETA observes that "while the claim of authorship by species other than homo sapiens may be novel, 'authorship' under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protections of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto." As a result, PETA argues that Naruto should be afforded the protection of a claim of ownership, and the right to recover damages and other relief for copyright infringement. PETA also seeks to enjoin and restrain Defendants from copying, licensing, or distributing the Monkey Selfies and claims damages on behalf of Naruto for the unauthorized use of the pictures. | Pleading | |||
| TX - Horse - Sale of Horsemeat (Chapter 149. Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption) | V. T. C. A., Agriculture Code § 149.001 - 007 | TX AGRIC § 149.001 - 007 | These statutes prohibit the sale of horsemeat, the possession of horsemeat with the intent to sell, and the knowing transfer of horsemeat to a person who intends to sell it for human consumption. Horsemeat is defined as the flesh of an animal of the genus equus. Prima facie evidence of an offense is prescribed by these statues and includes, for example, the presence of horsemeat in a restaurant or cafe. The penalty for an offense may be a fine of up to a $1,000, confinement for not less than 30 days and not more than two years, or both a fine and confinement. | Statute | |
| Kush v. Wentworth | 790 N.E.2d 912 (Ill.App. 2003) | 2003 WL 21290824, 339 Ill.App.3d 157 (2003) |
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for violation of the Animal Control Act and alleged negligence due to the broken leg that the Plaintiff suffered after she was kicked by Defendant’s horse while trying to pass the horse on a group ride. At the time of the accident, the defendant was neither an “equine activity sponsor” nor an “equine professional” according to the Act. The issue was whether the Act applied only to those two groups of people, and the court held that the Act does not preclude negligence liability for persons other than equine activity sponsors and equine professionals. |
Case | |
| Zeid v. Pearce | 953 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 1997) |
Richard and Susan Zeid appeal from the trial court's order dismissing their lawsuit against Dr. William Pearce, d/b/a Coronado Animal Clinic, for veterinary malpractice after the dog suffered from allergic reactions resulting from alleged negligent vaccinations. The court observed that, in Texas, the recovery for the death of a dog is the dog's market value, if any, or some special or pecuniary value to the owner that may be ascertained by reference to the dog's usefulness or services. Consequently, the court found this longstanding Texas rule to be inconsistent with the Zeids' claim for pain and suffering and mental anguish. Because the Zeids did not plead for damages for the loss of their dog that are recoverable in Texas, the trial court did not err in sustaining Dr. Pearce's special exception and dismissing their cause of action. |
Case | ||
| 253-20-JH/22 The case of Estrellita | 253-20-JH/22 | This is the unprecedented case of Estrellita, a woolly monkey, and the first animal with the status of subject of rights in Ecuador. Estrellita was illegally taken from her habitat as a baby and sold to a family that kept her as a pet for 18 years. The authorities became aware of Estrellita after an anonymous report stating that the Plaintiff was keeping a wild animal in their home. Estrellita was seized and relocated to a nearby zoo. The owner of Estrellita filed a habeas corpus requesting that Estrellita be returned to her, as she was a family member. Sadly, Estrellita died while under the care of the authorities. Despite the family's heartfelt plea, the court denied the habeas corpus, deciding that the best course of action was to keep Estrellita in the zoo - a decision that ultimately cost her life. The Constitutional Court decided to hear the case because it considered it had questions that needed to be answered. In a 7-2 court ruling, Ecuador's Constitutional Court held that animals are subjects of rights protected by the rights of nature. (In Ecuador, nature has been granted rights under the 2008 Constitution). The court found that both the Plaintiff and the authorities had violated Estrellita's rights to life and integrity by taking her from the wild and, in the government's case, by ignoring her needs when relocating her to the zoo. The court further held that the writ of habeas corpus could be appropriate in animal cases, depending on the circumstances. Another significant outcome of this decision is that the court instructed the Ministry of Environment and the Ombudsman to draft new legislation that materializes the parameters and criteria outlined in its decision. This legislation is essential in creating a legal framework to protect animals and ensure their rights are respected. | Case | ||
| US - Slaughter - Ante Mortem Inspection | 9 C.F.R. 309 | Progulmated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FIMA), Part 309 of the FIMA regulations covering livestock inspection state that alll livestock offered for slaughter in an official establishment shall be examined and inspected on the day of, and before, slaughter. Such ante-mortem inspection shall be made in pens on the premises of the establishment at which the livestock are offered for slaughter. If an establishment fails to present animals for ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.1, inspection program personnel will be unable to determine that carcasses are not adulterated during postmortem inspection, and therefore cannot permit the carcasses to be marked as inspected and passed. Livestock may also be determined to be non-ambulatory disabled, US suspect, or US Condemened. Read a petition that requests the Food Safety and Inspection Service amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: ―(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13. | Administrative | ||
| WI - Dog, licenses - Dogs. 174.07. Dog licenses and collar tags | W. S. A. 174.07 | WI ST 174.07 | This Wisconsin statute provides for collection of delinquent dog license fees. | Statute | |
| PA - Immunity - § 8331.1. Veterinary good Samaritan civil immunity | 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8331.1 | PA ST 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8331.1 | In Pennsylvania, any licensed veterinarian who, in good faith, renders emergency care to any animal which such individual has discovered at the scene of an accident or emergency situation is not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care. This immunity does not, however, apply to acts or omissions intentionally designed to cause harm, or any grossly negligent acts or omissions that cause harm to the animal. It also does not apply where the owner of the animal is present and can be consulted as to the proposed action by the veterinarian. | Statute |