Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tutela caso Clifor | 2020-0047 | This is the case of Clifor, a beloved family dog that suffered from epilepsy. Clifor's family used to purchase the medicine he needed from the Tolima Governorate, the only authorized place to sell this prescription medicine. When the petitioner tried to buy more medicine in June 2020, she was informed that they could not sell the drug to her because they were closed to the public. The petitioner filed a "Tutela" before the 1st Criminal Circuit Court in Ibague, Tolima, arguing the government had violated her due process rights and asked the court to order the defendants to provide the medicine within 48 hours. The judge held that governmental entities had ignored that animals were sentient beings subject to protection. It further stated that by not providing the medicine needed to treat Clifor's illness, the governmental entities had violated the petitioner's fundamental right of protection to the family unit, as Clifor's life had been put at risk and he was a member of the petitioner's family. The judge found that the petitioner had proven the family’s emotional attachment to their dog, making it a multispecies family. The judge also held that the government action had also violated Clifor's right to access medicine prescribed by his veterinarian, putting at risk his health and life. In explaining her decision, the judge stated that "the Constitutional Court had previously stated that the right to have a pet was part of the fundamental rights of free development of freedom and the right to family intimacy. Therefore, the government was obliged to provide the necessary means to facilitate their protection and care. Since the government has the pharmaceutical monopoly, it has to guarantee the access and availability of drugs." | Case | ||
| DC - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws and Dangerous Dog Provision | DC CODE § 8-1801 - 1814; § 8-1821.01- .02; § 8-1831.01; 8-1841.01 - .09; 8-1901 - 1908; § 22-861; § 22-1310 | DC ST § 8-1801 - 1814; § 8-1821.01- .02; § 8-1831.01; 8-1841.01 - .09; 8-1901 - 1908 | These District of Columbia statutes make up the dog laws for the District. Included among the provisions are definitions, animal control and at large provisions, and vaccinations/licensing regulations. With regard to dangerous dogs, the term "dangerous animal" means an animal that because of specific training or demonstrated behavior threatens the health or safety of the public. The Mayor may impound any animal at large or any dangerous animal. If a dog injures a person while at large, lack of knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity standing alone shall not absolve the owner from a finding of negligence. | Statute | |
| NY - Wild Animals - § 11-0512. Possession, sale, barter, transfer, exchange and import | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0512 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0512 | This section provides that no person shall knowingly possess, harbor, sell, barter, transfer, exchange or import any wild animal for use as a pet in New York state, except that any person who possessed a wild animal for use as a pet at the time that this section went effect may retain possession of such animal for the remainder of its life. Certain other entities are also excepted from this ban. | Statute | |
| In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule Litigation-MDL No.1993 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. | 720 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013) | 2013 WL 2991027 (D.C. Cir. 2013) |
Hunters and hunting organizations sued the Secretary of Interior, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Service itself after the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and barred the importation of polar bear trophies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). On appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendants' motion of summary judgment. |
Case | |
| Statute Amendments 2023 | Topic Table | ||||
| Quesada v. Compassion First Pet Hosps | No. A-1226-19, 2021 WL 1235136 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 1, 2021) | In this unpublished case, plaintiff’s cat “Amor” was euthanized after being diagnosed with heart failure disease and saddle thrombus. At the hospital, plaintiff was visibly affected by the death of his cat, who he was allowed to say goodbye to. Plaintiff also talked and sang to Amor’s body until the body was retrieved. Plaintiff was informed that during the procedure Amor had bitten one of the nurses and that state law required a brain tissue sample to rule out rabies. Plaintiff informed the veterinarian of his wish to display Amor's body for viewing prior to cremation in two different instances. Neither the procedure or alternative procedures were explained to the plaintiff. At the body’s viewing, the plaintiff discovered that his cat had been decapitated. Plaintiff became extremely emotional after discovering his cat’s head had been disposed of as medical waste. As a result of the decapitation, plaintiff developed several severe mental health issues. Plaintiff filed a claim alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and bailment. The case was dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff appealed the decision alleging that the lower court had mistakenly applied the standard of the bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress, instead of a direct liability claim and error in dismissing his remaining negligence and bailment claims. The court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On the count of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court held that plaintiff’s claim did not fall under the "bystander" liability as his severe emotional distress arose after the passing of his cat and upon seeing his cat's decapitated body. Additionally, the court stated that plaintiff’s “emotional reaction combined with the fact that defendant was twice on notice that plaintiff intended to have a viewing of his cat's body prior to cremation established that defendants owed plaintiff a duty.” Defendants breached this duty by being on notice of plaintiff emotional distress and failing to properly inform plaintiff of the typical procedure of decapitating the cat for rabies testing, inform him of alternative testing procedures, and failing to request that the cat's head be returned after decapitation and prior to the showing. Suffering of plaintiff’s illnesses was still to be determined. The court found that the plaintiff “had pleaded a direct claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” A claim of bailment had also been appropriately pleaded since plaintiff had given defendants control of his cat's body and defendant returned it in a damaged condition. | Case | ||
| LA - Rabies Immunization- Chapter 1. Anti-Rabies Vaccination Requirements for Dogs and Cats | 51 LA ADC Pt III, § 101 to 111 | La. Admin Code. tit. 51, pt. III, § 101 to 111 | These regulations are Louisiana's rabies provisions. Under the chapter, a person is prohibited from keeping a dog, cat, or ferret over the age of three months that has not been vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian. | Administrative | |
| CA - Cruelty - § 286.5. Sexually assaulting animal; misdemeanor | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 286.5 | CA PENAL § 286.5 | This California law, amended in 2019, provides that every person who has sexual contact with an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any authorized officer investigating a violation of this section may seize an animal that has been used in the commission of an offense to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, and to obtain evidence of the offense | Statute | |
| BD - Cruelty - THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1920 | Cruelty to Animals Act, 1920 (Act No. I of 1920) |
This Act constitutes Bangladesh's prevention of cruelty to animals act. The act defines "animal" as "any domestic or captured animal." Any person who: overdrives, cruelty or unnecessarily beats, or otherwise ill-treats any animal; binds or carries an animal in a position as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering; offers or has in his possession an animal that is suffering because of mutilation, thirst, starvation or other ill-treatment shall be punished for every such offence with fine up to one hundred Taka, or imprisonment up to three months, or with both. Overloading an animal is also punishable with a fine or jail term, and animal fighting results in a fine. |
Statute | ||
| Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2185180 (D.Hawai'i) |
Plaintiffs sued the Navy over the use of sonar; the Plaintiffs feared that the sonar would kill whales and other marine life. This case dealt with the required production of documents the Defendant claimed were privileged and or work product material. The Court found that the Defendant must hand over the material to the Plaintiffs because the documents were not in fact privileged. |
Case |