|
Brief Summary of Non-Therapeutic Procedures for Companion Animals |
This brief summary discusses the legal status of non-therapeutic surgeries on companion animals such as tail docking, ear cropping, de-barking of dogs, and de-clawing of cats. |
|
Brief Summary of Pet Custody During Divorce |
This is a brief summary of the emerging issues involved in pet custody during divorce. The summary explains how case law is slowly evolving to consider the unique challenges in awarding ownership of pets during a divorce. The handful of recent statutes that allow judges to consider a modified "best interests" model when awarding pet custody are also discussed. |
|
Brief Summary of Pet Damages |
This brief summary explores the issue of damages for loss or injury to pets. Despite the value most people assign to pets in their families, the legal system considers pets as personal property. The scope of damages available is also affected by this legal classification, as noneconomic or emotional damages such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of companionship are usually not recoverable for harm or destruction of property. As it stands in most states, fair market value is the approach used by most courts. |
|
Brief Summary of Police Shooting Pets Update |
This brief summary explores recent trends in cases involving the shooting of pets by police officers. The primary law under which such claims can be brought (42 U.S.C. §1983) is presented as well as defenses available to such actions. Finally, a short discussion on enhancement in training methods for officers and community strategies are provided. |
|
Brief Summary of Rodeos |
This brief summary explores issues of animal welfare and rodeos. The summary explores the history of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) and the self-governing rules implemented by the organization. The few federal and state laws applicable to rodeo animals are discussed as well as local laws that have more stringent bans. |
|
Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws |
|
|
Brief Summary of Welfare Standards for Animals Used in Zoos and Exhibition |
This brief summary explores laws regulating zoos and other animal exhibitions. Zoos, aquariums, and animal sanctuaries are subject to federal, state, and local laws. On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act and Endangered Species Act protect captive animals at these facilities. However, these statutes only provide minimal welfare requirements and are limited in terms of scope and enforcement. Beyond these federal laws, there are laws that protect specific species and states have adopted their own laws further regulating possession and exhibition of wild animals. In addition to increased regulation, there have been a number of organizations offering accreditation for exhibiting facilities, holding these facilities to a higher standard of animal welfare than the minimum requirements set out by federal laws like the Animal Welfare Act. |
|
Brief Summary of Wildlife Services |
This summary describes the role and function of Wildlife Services within the USDA. It describes management practices, both lethal and non-lethal as well as the concerns that have been raised with respect to WS methods. |
|
Brinkley v. County of Flagler |
Appellee county sought to enjoin appellant from mistreating animals by filing a petition against her under Fla. Stat. ch. 828.073 (1997). The animals on appellant's property were removed pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. 828.073, a statute giving law enforcement officers and duly appointed humane society agents the right to provide care to animals in distress. The entry onto appellant's property was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement for searches. The hearing after seizure of appellants' animals was sufficient to satisfy appellant's due process rights.
|
|
Brinton v. Codoni |
This unpublished Washington case stems from an attack on plaintiff's dog by a neighbor's dog. Plaintiff sued for damages, alleging negligence and nuisance. The trial court ruled on partial summary judgment that the plaintiff's damages were limited, as a matter of law, to the dog's fair market value. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to damages based on the dog's intrinsic value (i.e., utility and service and not sentimental attachment) and her emotional distress. On appeal, this court held that since the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that her dog had no fair market value, the trial court properly limited damages to that value. Further, because the plaintiff's nuisance claims were grounded in negligence, she was not entitled to damages beyond those awarded for her negligence claim.
|
