Pleadings, Briefs, and Jury Charges

Navigation

Full Site Search

Loading...

The navigation select boxes below will direct you to the selected page when you hit enter.

Topical Explanations

Primary Legal Materials

Select by Subject

Select by Species

Select Administrative Topic


World Law

Secondary Legal Materials

Great Apes and the Law

Great Apes and the Law

Maps of State Laws

Map of USA

Pleadings & Briefs

Name Topic
Jurisdiction
Summary
ALDF v. Conyers (2007)   Neglect/Kennels

North Carolina  
Plaintiffs in this case consist of the Wake County Animal Care, Control, and Adoption Center and the local chapter of the ALDF. They seek preliminary and permanent injunctions pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Secs. 19A-1 through 19A-4 against Defendant Janie Conyers, who was found to have 106 animals living in her house under deplorable conditions. Most of the animals suffer from severe chronic oral and skin conditions due to neglect.  
ALDF v. Veneman (2003)   AWA/APHIS

California - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  
Lawsuit filed over the lack of action by the federal agency, APHIS, to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities.  
ALDF v. Veneman (2006)   Zoo regulations/policy

United States  
In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy.  
ALDF v. Yost (2005)   cruelty (chimpanzee abuse)

United States  
Plaintiffs assert in their complaint that defendants, individuals and companies who use non-human primates in television and movie productions, engage in physical and psychological abuse of chimpanzees. Plaintiffs raise their first cause of action under the federal Endangered Species Act, contending that defendant's harassment, beating, and brutalization of the chimpanzees constitutes a "taking" under the ESA. Plaintiffs also raise causes of action under California law for specific recovery of property (e.g., the primates), conversion, violations under the California Business Code, and violations under the cruelty provisions of the California Penal Code.  
Ammon v. Welty (2000)   Dog shooting

Kentucky, United States  
Amicus Brief about non-economic damages in case where warden shot a family dog.  
Andrews v. The City of West Branch (2006)   Civil Rights Sec. 1983 Action for dog killing

United States  
Appellants filed a suit against defendant, City of West Branch, Iowa and former police chief Dan Knight, seeking damages and relief under Section 1983. The dog was killed by Knight in the owners' fenced backyard in view of one of the plaintiffs. The district court's grant of summary judgment for the officer was reversed and the case was remanded for a jury trial.  
ASPCA v. Ringling Bros. (2003 - 2009)   Animal Cruelty (elephant abuse)

United States  
Plaintiffs-ASPCA filed suit against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Feld Entertainment, Inc, under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs allege that FEI routinely beats elephants, chains them for long periods of time, hits them with sharp bull hooks, breaks baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly removes baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned. This conduct, plaintiffs contend, violates the "take" provision of the ESA.  
ASPCA v. Ringling Bros. (2003)   Cruelty/ESA

D.C. - United States District Court of the District of Columbia  
This case involves the Ringling Brothers circus company’s mistreatment of elephants brought by the ASPCA. Plaintiffs alleged that the alleged routine beating, chaining, and other mistreatment amounted to an unlawful taking of an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Judge rejects defendants’ motion to dismiss and order the case to proceed.  
Betts v. City of Long Beach (1991)   Dangerous Animal

California, United States  
This is a petition demanding an administrative hearing before the euthanizing of a dog.  
Brock v. Rowe (2000)   Shooting of dog

Oregon, United States  
Neighbor shot family dogs. This is a suit for non-economic damages.  
Cable v. Burrows (2006)  

California  
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims.  
Center for Animal Law and Advocacy v. Maggard (2002)   Cruelty

OH In the Common Pleas Court of Clark County, Ohio, Civil Division  
The Center for Animal Law and Advocacy based on Dayton, Ohio sued the defendant, Bryon Maggard, for his actions taken against his dog, Sadie. On March 17, 2002, the defendant beat Sadie with a skillet, tried to hang her with an electrical cord, and then set her on fire. The Center sued for compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000 to cover costs of Sadie’s veterinary treatment and rehabilitation, and asked the court to prohibit defendant from owning any animals in the future.  
Ciaccio v. City of Port St. Lucie  

Florida  
The following documents concern the appellant's request to release his dog from the Port St. Lucie, Florida Humane Society. At the time of the petition, the dog was kept in a "quarantine" area of the shelter and had not been let out of his cage for exercise or socialization since he was seized 8 months prior. Appellant asks the court to either let him securely confine the dog at his home or board him at the Safe Harbor Animal Sanctuary until the dangerous dog determination is resolved.  
City and County of Denver v. State of Colorado   BSL - Dangerous Dog

Colorado  
In 2004, the Colorado General Assembly passed changes to the state's dangerous dog laws; part of the law prohibited municipalities from adopting any breed-specific dog laws. Denver previously enacted an ordinance that regulated dogs by breed (Section 8-55). In this current action, the City instituted an action seeking declaratory judgment that Section 8-55 preempts the state law under the Home Rule Amendment. The court found that the regulation of dogs by breed on an intra-city basis was purely a matter of local concern, and thus fell under Home Rule authority. The state was permanently enjoined from taking any action against Denver based on the language of the amended state law.  
Clark v. Cardinal Animal Care (1993)   Veterinary Malpractice

North Carolina, United States  
Complaint for veterinary malpractice against veterinarian who lied about true condition of cat and performed unauthorized surgery.  
CVMA v. City of West Hollywood (2006)   Cruelty - cat declawing

California  
This California action concerns the adoption of an ordinance in 2003 by the City of West Hollywood that prohibits the de-clawing of house cats. Amici Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights ("A V AR"), and the Paw Project submitted a brief to assist the Court in its determination of whether the ordinance at issue on this appeal legally prohibits non-therapeutic onychectomies (commonly known as "de clawing ) of domestic animals within the City of West Hollywood. The California Superior Court found that the Business and Professions Code section 460 preempts a municipal ordinance that attempts to regulate veterinarian procedures. On Friday, June 22, 2007, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 that a city can regulate the conduct of its professionals provided it does not prohibit procedures that state law expressly allows.  
Danton v. St. Francis   Damages - boarding of cat

Washington  
This document contains the court's instructions to the jury in the Danton v. St. Francis case that concerned the escape of a companion animal (cat) from defendant animal hospital. The cat was being boarded at the hospital at the time it escaped.  
Danton v. St. Francis (2007)   Pet Damages

Washington  
This Washington case involves plaintiff's suit against defendant animal hospital for the escape of her cat while the cat was being boarded at the hospital. Plaintiff sued for simple negligence with a presumption of res ipsa loquitur and breach of bailment contract. With regard to damages, plaintiff pleads intrinsic value of "Moochie," which includes as component the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff.  
DeSanctis v. Hurley Pritchard (Petition for Allowance of Appeal) (2002)   Custody of dog

PA - Pennsylvania Supreme Court  
Plaintiff seeks enforcement of contract with ex-spouse for sharing possession of dog. Lower court refused to enforce agreement saying that dogs were just property and shared possession was not possible.  
Everette v. Highlands Bird & Pet Clinic (2007)   Pet damages

Washington  
This King County, Washington order states that the appropriate measure of damages for "Tashi" is intrinsic value and not fair market or replacement value. The matter came before the court on plaintiff's motion concerning damage theories.  
Friedman v. Kaiser-Permanente (2000)   Vegan Rights

California, United States  
Amicus Curae brief arguing for veganism to be viewed as a religion in wrongful termination case.  
Fund for Animals v. BLM (2006)   Horse management

United States  
The Fund for Animals and individuals dedicated to protecting animals brought an action against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) challenging its implementation of its restoration strategy for wild horses and burros on public lands. The approved budget request made by the BLM, which contained outlines of the reinvigorated wild horses and burros program and set broad goals and strategies, was not an “agency action” subject to review. Finally, plaintiffs request for a permanent injunction, to prevent BLM from carrying out specified removal actions, was moot because the “gathers” have already occurred and what happens in the future is based on unknown variables.  
Grizzel v. Hickey (1991)   Research Animals, Theft and Sale of

OR Linn County Circuit Court  
The plaintiff in this Oregon case brought an action alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant, who was a licensed animal dealer. Plaintiff owned “My Girl,” a purebred cocker spaniel, whom plaintiff cared for and enclosed in a secure, fenced backyard. While My Girl was secure in her backyard, two other individuals seized her and transported her to defendant Hickey (who was known to be engaged in the business of selling animals to research laboratories).  
Guha v. Corcpork (2007)   Pig confinement/humane slaughter

California  
This case involves an action by plaintiffs, consumers who have eaten pork from defendant's company, against defendant pork-producers under California's anti-cruelty and unlawful business practices laws. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendant's use of gestation crates for pregnant sows is illegal under California Penal Code Section 597t (a section that requires anyone who keeps an animal confined in an enclosed area must provide it with an adequate exercise area). Thus, defendants' violation of 597t provides a predicate for violation under California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200, better known as the unlawful business or practice act.  
Hair v. Quail Corners Animal Hospital (1991)   Veterinary Malpractice

North Carolina, United States  
Standard veterinary malpractice case for a show dog. Includes Interrogatories.  
Hammer v. AKC (2003)   Cruelty

NY  
Plaintiff, the owner of a Brittany Spaniel dog with an undocked tail, sought to enter his dog into AKC competitions. However, AKC standards stated that any tail substantially over four inches long would be "severely penalized." Plaintiff contended the practice of docking a dog’s tail (which oftentimes occurs without anesthesia or even under the proper care of a veterinarian) constituted an act of cruelty in violation of Agriculture and Markets Section 353 and was an arbitrary and capricious discriminatory standard. Plaintiff sought both declaratory relief declaring that the practice is illegal and discriminatory, and injunctive relief to enjoin the practice form being applied in New York and elsewhere.  
Hane v. James (2006)   Arbitration award

Washington  
This is a copy of a Washington arbitration award that awarded general and special damages.  
Harrington v. Hovanec (2005)   Damages - dog

California - Superior Court, State of California, County of Placer  
This California lawsuit arose from the negligent and/or intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant in May of 2004. According to the complaint, plaintiff's dog was shot at least thirteen times by defendant's two different guns.  
HSUS v. Johanns (2006)   Horse slaughter

United States  
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and for a Preliminary Injunction, and Request for a Hearing requesting that the Court, “temporarily and preliminarily enjoi[n] and declar[e] unlawful a Final Rule just promulgated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) that creates a “fee-for-service” inspection system designed to facilitate the continued transport and slaughter of American horses for human consumption abroad.” In an memorandum opinion, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction because it found that plaintiffs do not demonstrate the factors necessary for the court to issue a preliminary injunction.  
In re Callan Jr. (2007)   Wills and Trusts (appointment of guardian ad litem)

Tennessee  
This Tennessee order appoints a guardian ad litem for the custody and care of decedent, Ronald W. Callan Jr.'s, dog.  
In re Estate of Howard Brand (1999)   Wills and Trusts

Vermont - Chittenden County Probate Court  
This Vermont case considers the effectiveness of a clause in a testator’s will that directs his executor to destroy any animals that he owns at the time of his death. The testator, Howard Brand, was believed to have owned four horses and one mule at the time of his death. An unincorporated association entitled, “The Coalition to Save Brand’s Horses” was formed in response to this unusual post-mortem request, and sought to intervene in the lawsuit. In a clear case of first impression in Vermont, the Chittenden County Court held that the clause as set forth in Brand’s last codicil mandating the destruction of his animals is void as contrary to public policy.  
In the Matter of a Protective Order for Jean Marie Primrose (2005)  

Oregon  
This series of actions stemmed from the seizure of 11 cats from Jean Marie Primrose from her Linn County, Oregon home. Ms. Primrose was charged with criminal animal neglect in the second degree, but the trial court dismissed those charges because she was found incompetent due to a cognitive impairment. Because the case was dismissed, the cats were not forfeited by law and Cat Champion had incurred a $32,510 debt in caring for the animals. Cat Champions filed a petition for a limited protective order as a fiduciary for the care and placement of the cats. The probate court ruled against Cat Champions but on appeal the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's order and held that the probate court did indeed have authority to enter a limited protective order.  
Ing v. American Airlines (2006)   Pet Damages

California  
This California complaint arose from the death of plaintiff's dog while in American Airlines' care. The dog flew from New York to San Francisco in the cargo area. Upon arrival, the dog was alive, but in physical distress. Plaintiff raised eleven causes of action, including gross negligence, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.  
Krcmar v. Kirkland (1992)   Veterinary Malpractice

Arizona  
Veterinarian abused dog, resulting in death. Veterinarian then tried to cover up his actions by improper disposal of body. This is a malpractice suit for damages. This is also a good example of "conspiracy of silence."  
Lee v. Cook (1999)   Pet damages

Kentucky, United States  
Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages.  
Levine et al v. Johanns (2005)   Humane slaughter

United States  
This action challenges the exclusion of chickens, turkeys, and other birds from the protections of the federal Humane Slaughter Act (HSA). Plaintiffs all contend that by excluding these animals from the protections of the Act exposes them to greater risk of food-borne illness. In their complaint, Plaintiffs request an order finding the act of excluding poultry from the HSA is arbitrary and capricious, and enjoining the USDA from excluding poultry species from the HSA. Because the plaintiffs credibly established an imminent exposure to pathogens from consuming inhumanely slaughtered animals, defendant’s motion to dismiss the consumer claims was denied.  
Lewis v. DiDonna (2002)   Veterinary Malpractice

NY Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Ulster  
In this case, the plaintiff brought her dog of nine years to a veterinarian and was given a prescription for an anti-inflammatory drug called Feldene to treat the dog’s condition. After the dog died of renal failure complications, plaintiff discovered that the Feldene prescription was mislabeled by the pharmacist. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department held that the allegations in plaintiff’s verified complaint sufficiently allege defendant’s wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights to survive a motion to dismiss. Further, the court noted that while plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of her cause of action for loss of companionship, the court made it clear that loss of companionship is not cognizable cause of action in the state of New York.  
Lockett v. Hill (2001)   Pet damages

Oregon, United States  
Defendant's pit bulls killed plaintiff's cat while she watched. This is an appellate brief about non-economic damages.  
Long v. Lewis (2006)   Pet damages

Washington  
This King County, Washington case concerns the appropriate measure of damages for the loss of plaintiff's cat. The court granted plaintiff's motion, finding that damages can include intrinsic value and loss of use. While "loss of companionship" may be the subject of testimony and argument, the court stated that it may not be a "line item" measure of damages.  
Maldonado v. Fontanes   Pet seizure/civil rights violation/due process

United States  
This case was initially brought after two successive raids on public housing complexes, within ten days of the Municipality of Barceloneta assuming control of the public housing complexes from the Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration on October 1, 2007. Prior to the raid, the residents, mostly Spanish-speakers, were given notice of the new "no pet policy," which were written in English. During the raids, plaintiffs' pets were seized and then killed by either being slammed against the side of a van or thrown off a 50-foot bridge. This First Circuit affirmed the denial of the Mayor's motion for qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims. However, it reversed the denial of qualified immunity to the Mayor as to the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims and ordered those claims dismissed. Included in the pleading documents are plaintiffs' second amended complaint filed in 2007 and plaintiffs' brief filed in December 2008.  
Mansour v. King County (2006)   Dangerous dog

Washington  
In this Washington case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious and ordering her removed from the county. The court found that for Mansour or any other pet owner to prove effectively present his or her case and rebut the evidence against him or her, due process requires that he or she be able to subpoena witnesses and present records. Mr. Mansour was prejudiced in his case because he was not allowed to do so and was not given sufficient notice for the hearing.  
Medeiros v. Lloyd (1987)   Veterinary Malpractice

Massachusetts, United States  
Suit for damages against a veterinarian for improper treatment of a dog. Briefs drafted by Steven M. Wise, one of the best-known names in Animal Law.  
N.E. Georgia Pet Rescue v. Elbert County (2005)   Kennels/Ordinances

Georgia  
In this Georgia case, plaintiff ran a pet rescue out of his home. Defendant Elbert County enacted an ordinance effective in October 2005 that requires every owner or custodian of more than 15 dogs to obtain a kennel license from the Elbert County Animal Control Department. To obtain this license, the applicant must be ". . . accompanied by a written statement signed by the head of household of each residence located within 1,200 feet of the kennel or proposed location of the kennel, stating that said resident does not object to the location and operation of a kennel at said location or proposed location." Plaintiff was unable to obtain these signed statements. He then challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional and unenforceable because it conditions the granting of a license upon the completely arbitrary and subjective approval of neighbors and uses an unconstitutionally vague term ("head of household"). In the consent agreement between the parties, Elbert County agreed to stay enforcement of the ordinance and give plaintiff sufficient notice to again file injunctive relief if it chooses to amend the ordinance.  
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside (1990)   Restrictions on Animals

California, United States  
Neighborhood Association had covenants against pets. Woman had two cats (against rules) and was charge large fines for having them. She challenged the validity of the rule, as well as the method of enforcement.  
Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy   Primate Issues

New York  
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA).  
Ortega Administrative Hearing (1997)   Dangerous Animal

California, United States  
Trial brief for an administrative hearing to determine whether dog, "Rocky," was "vicious" or "dangerous."  
People v. Sitors (2006)   Horse neglect/abuse

New York  
This action is an appeal from dismissal of criminal charges against a woman accused of acts of cruelty on her horses. The Town Court dismissed the criminal charges, finding that since the Catskill Animal Sanctuary's petition seeking the posting of security to care for the horses was dismissed (which had a lower standard of proof than in a criminal action), this necessarily meant it would be impossible to obtain a criminal conviction under the higher standard. The County Court found this reasoning erroneous; a violation under the law occurs when one fails to provide necessary sustenance, not only those acts or omissions that result in an animal's death. The criminal actions were thus, reinstated against defendant.  
PETA v. Sea World   13th Amendment

California  
In this case of first impression, five wild-captured orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), seek a declaration that they are held by the Defendants in violation of Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.  
Phillips v. Director (1986)   Dangerous Animal

California, United States  
These are excellent briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a "dangerous" dog is euthanized.  
Powers v. Tincher (2001)   Nuisance, Cockfighting

OH Common Pleas Court Green County, OH and Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District, Green County Ohio  
While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance.  
Proie v. NMFS   Marine Mammals

United States (United States District Court, W.D. Washington)  
This case challenges a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to exclude from the listing of the Southern Resident killer whale population all captive members of that population and their progeny. By excluding the captive members from the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act, plaintiffs contend that NMFS has failed to protect these animals from being harmed, harassed, and even killed, as otherwise prohibited under the ESA, and has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law, within the meaning of the APA.  
Putnam Humane Society vs. Duso (1998)   Neglect

Florida - County Court in and for Putnam County, Florida  
The Putnam County (Florida) Humane Society brought an action seeking permanent custody of 41 dogs from Marjorie Duso, the operator of a kennel. The PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The Putnam County Court granted the PCHS custody of the dogs (except for Ms. Duso’s personal pet dog, which the PCHS was given the right to check on at least once a month). Further, the court enjoined Ms. Duso from owning, possessing, or breeding dogs except those kept as personal pets.  
Rappaport v. McElroy (1995)   Veterinary Malpractice

California - In the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, County of Los Angeles, State of California (Van Nuys Branch)  
In this California case, plaintiff sued a veterinarian for giving his exotic pet (a Serval cat), a flea treatment known to be toxic to cats. The veterinary malpractice action focused on defendant’s negligence in failing to exercise a reasonable level of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by others practicing veterinary medicine. In fact, plaintiff contended that it is well known in the field and indicated by the manufacturer of Spotton, that the drug should not be used on felines. Plaintiff prayed for damages in the amount of $25,000, which included lost wages, the commercial value of the cat, and loss of companionship, among other things.  
Richardson v. Primarily Primates (2006)   Primates - cruelty

Texas  
In this case, plaintiffs are non-human primates and humans interested in their welfare. The primates were formerly part of a research program run at Ohio State University for cognition research (the OSU Chimpanzee Cognition Center). After funding ran out, OSU sold the chimpanzees to Primarily Primates Inc. (“PPI”), who held themselves out to be non-profit that acts a sanctuary for retiring animals. However, plaintiffs allege that the conditions in which the chimpanzees were housed were inadequate and proper care was not provided to the primates. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract or, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that would transfer the animals to a new sanctuary because defendants’ actions are unlawful under Texas laws.  
Rodriguez-Porras v. Miami-Dade Animal Services (2005)   Pet Damages

Florida  
This Miami-Dade County, Florida case concerns the unauthorized euthanization of the plaintiff's dog, "Cowboy." In August of 2005, Cowboy got loose after being frightened by a storm and picked up by an animal shelter officer. The plaintiff was inaccurately informed that no dog matching Cowboy's description was at the shelter (records from the shelter showed he was actually picked up the same day he escaped from his home). Five days later, she was informed that Cowboy was at the shelter. The shelter euthanized the dog despite assurances to plaintiff that he would be kept safe. Plaintiff sued animal control, the county, and police department for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, wrongful disposition of a body, and negligence.  
Sample California Criminal Protection Order for Domestic Violence  

California  
On January 1, 2009, this new protective order will be in effect in the State of California. This revised protective order includes Section 5, "For good cause shown, the court grants the protected persons named above the exclusive care, possession, and control of the following animals."  
Sandle v. Davis (2003)   Damages - dog shooting

CA - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION) COUNTY OF SOLANO  
This complaint arose from the intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant. Plaintiff was on his property pruning a tree when defendant shot plaintiff's dog, who was in the street at the time approximately three feet away from defendant. As a result of the shooting, plaintiff's dog is paralyzed in the back half of his body and suffers from bladder and bowel difficulties.  
Schumacher v. City of Portland   Attorney fees

Oregon  
In this Opinion, the judge granted the defendants a total of $96,870.85 in attorneys fees. The action stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Schumachers for $ 6.6 million dollars against the City of Portland and the named defendants seeking damages for alleged illegal protest activities in front of their fur store. The defendants all prevailed on their Motion to Strike. The court observed that awarding of attorney fees is mandatory under Oregon law when a party prevails in an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit. Thus, the issue at hand was the amount of the attorney fees.  
Seagrave v. Atzet (2004)   Damages - dog shooting

CA - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN  
This California complaint arose from the shooting of plaintiff's golden retriever dog. Plaintiff's dog was in the backyard surrounded by a fence. According to the complaint, defendant intentionally used a high-powered pellet rifle and shot the dog by positioning the rifle over or through the fence. This injury resulted in plaintiff's dog's death.  
Sheldon Park Tenants v. ACHA (1989)   Animal Restrictions

Pennsylvania, United States  
Public Housing Authority decided to enforce "no pets" rule after years of unenforcement. This is a brief in arbitration.  
Shumate v. Mouraux (2000)   Damages, Dog Boarding Facility

CA Superior Court of the State of California, City and County Of San Francisco  
In this California case, the plaintiff sought damages after her companion, a nine-year-old purebred cocker spaniel, suffered terminal injuries after staying at a “dog spa.” Plaintiff’s causes of action focused on negligence claims, arguing that Daisy’s injuries could not have occurred without negligence by someone and that she was in the exclusive control of defendants when they occurred. What is significant about this complaint is that it raises a modified res ipsa loquitur argument in a bailment action. It also contends that the exculpatory waiver signed by plaintiff in this business relationship was unlawful.  
Skagss v. Walmart Stores East, Inc. (2000)   Damages, Product Liability

Kentucky - Jefferson County Circuit Court  
This case involves a suit by a dog owner against Wal-Mart and 21st Century Pets after an indoor pet boundary fence and transmitter caused fatal injuries to plaintiff’s dog. The Plaintiff alleged that the product was so defective as to create causes of action based on strict liability, negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The Jefferson County Court held that the “fair market value standard falls far short of fair compensation for the loss of a companion animal.” The court agreed that the household goods exception, well-recognized under Kentucky law, was an example of the extension of damages for property beyond fair market value.  
Stein v. Prince (1995)   Veterinary Malpractice

IL Circuit Court of Cook County, Municipal Division  
This Illinois action brings forth the claims of four sets of plaintiffs for various claims against defendant-veterinarian. While the specific facts concerning the alleged wrongdoings are not provided, it appears that defendant was a veterinarian who operated a medical center and animal boarding facility. Plaintiffs all raise four counts against defendant (breach of contract, negligence, malpractice, and bailment) for the deaths of their dogs.  
Stephanski v. Wimpy (1996)   Veterinary Malpractice

Kentucky, United States  
Complaint against a veterinarian for malpractice. Plaintiff's died after neutering.  
Taylor v. Burgess, et al. (2001)   Pet damages

Kentucky, United States  
Taylor v. Burgess is a landmark case in Kentucky allowing non-economic damages for an animal. Judy Taylor's two horses were stolen and sold for slaughter. Taylor then successfully sued for non-economic damages.  
Texas Horse Slaughter Case   Texas Prohibition on Slaughter of Horses

Texas  
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against state of Texas to stop the enforcement of a law prohibiting the slaughter of horses in Texas as the law is improper on a number of bases.  
The Humane Society of the United States, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant (2007)   Dogfighting/Cockfighting

District of Columbia  
The HSUS filed this lawsuit against Amazon.com alleging unlawful trade practices under the D.C. Consumer Protection Act for Amazon's promotion and distribution of dogfighting and cockfighting magazines and videos. Plaintiffs contend that the magazines and videos are essentially contraband under the federal Animal Welfare Act and the federal Depiction of the Animal Cruelty statutes, in addition to D.C. animal cruelty statutes.  
Toledo v. Tellings (2006, 2007)   Breed Specific Legislation (pit bull ordinance)

Ohio  
This Ohio case concerns a Toledo ordinance that limited the ownership of Pit Bull dogs to only one dog per household (respondent had three pit bulls). Essentially, the ordinance classifies a Pit Bull as a “vicious dog” under the vicious dog ordinance even if the dog has not engaged in aggressive or vicious behavior. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District found that the ordinance as written was constitutionally vague. The Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2007, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.  
Toledo v. Tellings (2007)   Breed Specific Legislation (pit bull ordinance)

Ohio  
This Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Appellant City of Toledo was filed for the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.  
Toledo v. Tellings (2007)   Breed Specific Legislation (pit bull ordinance)

Ohio  
This Reply Brief of Appellant City of Toledo was filed for the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.  
Toledo v. Tellings (2007)   Breed Specific Legislation (pit bull ordinance)

Ohio  
This is the City of Toldeo's Appellant Brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.  
Toledo v. Tellings (2007)   Breed Specific Legislation (pit bull ordinance)

Ohio  
This is the Ohio Attorney General's amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.  
U.S. v. Stevens   Cruelty, depictions of

United States  
The Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 48, the federal law that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty, is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The defendant was convicted after investigators arranged to buy three dogfighting videos from defendant in sting operation. Because the statute addresses a content-based regulation on speech, the court considered whether the statute survived a strict scrutiny test. The majority found that the conduct at issue in § 48 does not give rise to a sufficient compelling interest. Cert. was granted in April of 2009 by the U.S. Supreme Court.  
United States of America v. Stevens  

 
The Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 48, the federal law that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty, is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This brief supports the United States' petition for certiorari. Cert. was granted in April of 2009 by the U.S. Supreme Court.  
United States of America v. Stevens   Cruelty, depictions of

United States  
The Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 48, the federal law that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty, is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. This brief by Stevens opposes the United States' petition for certiorari. Cert. was granted in April of 2009 by the U.S. Supreme Court.  
Valpiani v. Reising (2006)   Veterinary malpractice

Washington  
This King County, Washington motion for summary judgment sought dismissal of several of plaintiff's claims as well as a limitation to the damages that are recoverable. Plaintiffs claim that the negligence of defendant-veterinarian caused the death of their dog (defendant admitted negligence so the issue here centers on damages). The court held that plaintiffs may assert claims for loss of use, but not loss of companionship.  
Vick, Michael - Associated Materials (2007, 2008)   Dogfighting

United States  
The following contains links to the materials associated with Michael Vick's federal and state indictments for dogfighting.  
Viva! v. Adidas (2005)  

California  
In this California case, plaintiffs sued defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants import the kangaroo leather in violation of section Penal Code section 653o. Section 653o bans the import of products made from certain animals, including kangaroos into California. Defendants import and sell in California markets athletic shoes made from kangaroo leather. The appellate court agreed with the lower court, finding that the statute as applied to defendants in this case conflicts with federal law and with substantial federal objectives of persuading Australian federal and state governments to impose kangaroo population management programs, in exchange for allowing the importation of kangaroo products.  
Voir Dire Questions (2002)   Neglect - Voir Dire Questions

Virginia, United States  
These are some sample voir dire questions. One from a horse neglect case; one is from the "Noah's Arc Case."  
Williams v. Orange County Animal Control (1996)   Dangerous Animal

California, United States  
Case where owners challenge validity of euthanasia order for "dangerous" dog.  
Wilson v. City of St. Louis (1990)   Dangerous Dog/Impoundment

Missouri - Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis  
This action concerns the release of a dog who was impounded and classified as “dangerous” without a chance for his owner to argue against the action. Plaintiff Malane Wilson filed a petition for a preliminary and permanent injunction, a petition for declaratory judgment, and a petition for replevin against the City of St. Louis and the Animal Regulation Center, among others. The subject of the petitions concerned her American Pit Bull Terrier named Max who was seized by agents of the Animal Regulation Center as an apparent “dangerous dog.”  
Womack v. Von Rardon (2006)   Cruelty - intentional animal cruelty

Washington  
In this Washington case, a cat owner sued a minor and his parents after the minor set her cat on fire. While this Court found that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment with respect to Ms. Womack's private nuisance, tort outrage, and statutory waste claims, it held that the lower court incorrectly calculated the measure of damages. This Court held that the general allegations include sufficient facts to find both malicious conduct toward Ms. Womack's pet and her resulting emotional distress. Thus, "[f]or the first time in Washington, we hold malicious injury to a pet can support a claim for, and be considered a factor in measuring a person's emotional distress damages."  
Wysotski v. Air Canada (2002)   Damages - Loss of Cat by Airlines

CA - California Superior Court of San Francisco  
Airline mishandled shipment of pet cat, the container was damaged and cat escaped. Complaint on negligence and other grounds for $2.5 million in damages.  
Zauper v. Lababit (2006)   Pet Damages

Washington  
This Kitsap County, Washington judgment summary, findings of fact, and conclusions of law found defendants liable for five claims including simple negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, public nuisance, and gross negligence. In the award of damages, plaintiff received a total judgment in the amount of $75,501.09, which included $50,000 for intrinsic value and $25,000 for emotional distress.  

Back to top