Custody of pet
Title![]() |
Summary |
---|---|
07392-2013-PU: Serrano v. Horse Brown SAC, 2013 - Peru | Esta sentencia resuelve los disensos de los jueces en el caso Serrano vs. Horse Brown SAC. Se discuten las ideas de protección de los animales no humanos y la prevalencia de los deberes positivos y negativos para con la naturaleza, así como los derechos constitucionales peruanos relativos a la propiedad y a la libertad personal en general. La sentencia resuelve que la demanda era infundada y debe entenderse en el marco de la ley de Amparo. |
Amparo Directo D.A.- 454/2021 - Mexico | |
ANIMAL CUSTODY DISPUTES: A GROWING CRACK IN THE “LEGAL THINGHOOD” OF NONHUMAN ANIMALS | |
Arguello v. Behmke |
|
Arrington v. Arrington |
|
Assal v. Barwick (Kidwell) | |
Augillard v. Madura |
|
Brief Summary of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals | This summary briefly examines laws relating to foster-care and non-profit rescue organizations. It discusses concerns that arise relating to contractual liability, local ordinances, and tort claims. |
Brinkley v. County of Flagler |
|
C.M. v. E.M. | This is a family law case concerning, among other issues, the euthanasia of a family companion animal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated an order in place by putting the family dog down without reason, necessity, and justification, and that the dog was an emotional support animal whose custody had not been determined. Defendant also argues that plaintiff did not allow defendant the opportunity to spend time with the dog before it was put down, and that he suffered emotional distress due to the dog's death. The court found that the euthanasia of the family dog did not violate the order in place, because the companion animal was not classified as "property" or an "asset" under the order in place, and that animals are afforded additional protection under the Family Court Act. Whether the animal was put down unnecessarily could be considered animal cruelty, but that inquiry would need to be determined in a criminal proceeding, and criminal charges were not filed. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff did not violate the order by euthanizing the family dog. |