United States
Title | Summary |
---|---|
Sullivan v. Ringland |
A New Hampshire husband and wife owned their dog jointly when they divorced. The husband planned to take care of the dog while the wife relocated. Instead, he gave the dog away to a friend with a young son. The court held that the wife’s replevin action was not available against the donee of a cotenant. |
Summary of all Federal Animal Protection Statutes | |
Summary of Emotional Support Animal Cases | This document provides summaries of cases involving emotional support animals( ESAs). The specific issues decided by the courts range from breeds of dogs used for ESAs, the charging of fees or pet deposits, places an ESA can be taken, and use of an ESA in university housing, among many other topics. Links to the actual case are provided. |
Summit County Board of Health v. Pearson |
|
Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
|
Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
|
Survey of Damages Measures Recognized in Negligence Cases Involving Animals | This article will first articulate the various ways in which courts and legislatures have resolved negligence cases involving plaintiffs seeking emotion-based damages for harm done to their companion animals. Second, this article will provide an overview of the public policy issues surrounding recovery for emotional damages in tort cases involving animals. Finally, this article will explain how allowing non-economic damages in companion animal cases involving mere negligence would be unsound public policy and an unwise departure from established law. |
Sutton v. Sutton | Plaintiff brought an action in tort against his father for injuries incurred in attempting to help his father and younger brother recapture an escaped bull. The defendant appeals from judgment for the plaintiff. |
Swan Song? Giving a Voice to Mute Swans in the Chesapeake Bay |
|
Swanson v. Tackling | This is an interlocutory appeal by the dog owners (the Swansons) in a personal injury lawsuit for a dog bite. The court in this case overruled the lower court’s ruling that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgement after defendant’s dog bit a child but the dog had never shown a propensity to injure anyone prior to the incident. Plaintiff was suing defendant after defendant’s dog bit plaintiff’s child on the arm and head. Plaintiff argued that defendant is responsible for the injuries caused by the dog because the defendant neglected to properly restrain the dog. The court reversed the lower court’s decision and held in favor of defendant, stating that there was no evidence that was presented to indicate that defendant could have or should have known that the dog would act in this way towards the child. In order to prevail, the plaintiff needed to present evidence that the dog had acted in a similar way in the past. |