United States

Summary: This case involves a dispute under the Louisiana Public Records Act, La. R.S. 44:1 et seq., concerning public records requests made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Louisiana State University (LSU) for documents related to ongoing research involving wild songbirds conducted by Dr. Christine Lattin. PETA sought various records, including veterinary care records, video recordings of experiments, and communications related to the amendment of a local bird ordinance. LSU initially withheld the records, arguing that some were exempt under federal law or protected as patentable or licensable research under La. R.S. 44:4(16)(b). The district court ruled in favor of PETA, ordering the production of most requested records, but the court of appeal partially reversed, finding that some video recordings were exempt under La. R.S. 44:4(16)(b) as they pertained to ongoing research. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that LSU failed to meet its burden of proving the records were properly withheld, emphasizing the broad public right to access under the Louisiana Constitution and Public Records Law. The Court rejected LSU’s arguments that the records were exempt under federal law or as ongoing research, except for unpublished video recordings, which remained protected. The decision underscores the principle that access to public records can only be denied when a law specifically and unequivocally provides otherwise.

Summary: Appellant Candis Danielson was seriously injured by dogs owned by Donald Mehrtens on his property. The injuries were so severe that she lost the lower half of her right leg and sustained damage to her other leg and hand. After Danielson was injured, Mehrtens surrendered both dogs to Humboldt County, which resulted in them being declared vicious and euthanized. Mehrtens was also barred from owning dogs for three years. She filed this action for damages against numerous parties, including Mehrtens and the County of Humboldt (Humboldt County or County). The County demurred. This appeal concerns solely the cause of action against the County for its alleged failure to perform a mandatory duty. This court first noted the record demonstrated Mehrtens had at least five different incidents over more than ten years that involved either an attack by his dogs or a report to animal control (including reports on biting, failure to license, and failure to vaccinate). When Dainelson was attacked by Mehrtens dogs in 2021, she argued that the County was liable for her injuries because it failed to perform mandatory duties imposed by the Humboldt County Code like impoundment and euthanasia of dogs that are unvaccinated, unlicensed, and dangerous. The County contended that there is no mandatory duty under the county code, to which the lower court agreed.This court found that the Government Claims Act provides immunity to public entities and employees for legislative action or discretionary law enforcement activity as opposed to mandatory duties. Here, the county ordinance did not impose a mandatory duty for the officer to petition for a hearing after one of Mehrtens' dogs had bitten a neighbor months earlier. In addition, the officer did not have a mandatory duty to impound the dogs due for licensing and rabies vaccination concerns. Finally, the dangerous dog ordinances also did not mandate seizing or impounding the dogs. Within the compulsory rabies vaccination code, the county did not impose a mandatory duty to impound unvaccinated dogs that had bitten someone. The use of the term "shall" in section 547-8 only applied after officer exercised his or her discretion in conducting an investigation. Similarly, the use of the term "shall" in two instances of the chapter on rabies vaccination did not create a mandatory duty because the decision of whether to impound a dog at all was discretionary. While the court "sympathize[d] with her desire to be compensated for her injuries," the failure to identify a law that created "a mandatory duty which was breached by the County" does not exist here. The lower court was affirmed.

Summary: This article concerns the recent technological advancement of the lab-grown meat industry and subsequent backlash from some states that have enacted bans on lab-grown meat products. Florida and Alabama have enacted bans, and some states have proposed special labeling laws for lab-grown meat products. This article discusses the controversy that led to these laws, some of the pros and cons of lab-grown animal products, and viability of replacing animal agriculture with lab-grown meat in the long term.

Summary: In this case, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) approved the construction of Vineyard Wind, a wind power project off the coast of Massachusetts after consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”). A group of Nantucket residents, organized as "Nantucket Residents Against Turbines" (“Residents”), allege that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction likely would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment for BOEM and NMFS. On appeal of summary judgment, the Residents further allege that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on NMFS's flawed analysis. The court rejected the Residents' argument, finding that NMFS's biological opinion properly analyzed the current status and environmental baseline of the right whale. Further, the biological opinion properly analyzed the effects of the project (e.g., noise) on the right whale, along with mitigation measures, and did not ignore the project's additive effects on the right whale's long-term recovery prospects. Finally, BOEM's reliance on the biological opinion did not violate NEPA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Summary: Appellant Stefanowicz appeals from the judgment entered in the Tioga County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania. Appellant and his wife co-owned a deer farm ("Awesome Whitetails") where they are legally licensed to operate and sell trophy bucks which are kept in a fenced-in enclosure on their property. Appellant's neighbor, Ms. Smith, owned two German Shepherd dogs, which Appellant testified frequently entered his property and had previously harassed the animals he raises there. Appellant and his wife submitted a complaint to the state dog warden who then warned Smith of the statewide requirements on confining dogs. The warden also advised Appellant of the legal right to kill a dog that is “in the act of pursuing or wounding or killing” Appellant's animals. In fall of 2020, Smith's dogs entered Appellant's property and were chasing the deer from outside the fence. This deer began to panic, causing one to get stuck in the fence where one of the dogs then stared biting it. Appellant tried to yell at the dogs to no avail, so he then shot and killed the dogs. Appellant testified that one deer had a bloody gash, two more had bloody faces, and one deer died of a broken neck. Ultimately, Smith was sent a citation for failing to confine the dogs and Appellant was charged with two counts of Aggravated Cruelty to Animals and convicted of one of those counts. On appeal, Appellant raises several issues. The first two issues challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the Aggravated Cruelty conviction. The court found sufficient evidence for the conviction as Appellant acted in an intentional manner to kill the dogs. Next, Appellant asserts that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because of his legal defense. In Pennsylvania, it is legal to kill certain dogs in the act of pursuing or wounding "domestic animals" (which includes farm-raised deer). The trial judge here gave an instruction on the defense, but added that "under the laws of this Commonwealth, harassing an animal through a fence without any contact does not constitute pursuing, wounding, or killing an animal." Here, the jury heard that instruction and found the defense inapplicable for one dog. There was testimony from Appellant that he saw one of the two dogs biting a deer caught in the fence, not both dogs. Since the jury was free to evaluate the testimony and infer guilt, the reviewing court will not disturb the lower court's determination. After disposing of the remaining issues related to jury selection and ineffective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed Appellant's sentence.

Summary: In this North Carolina case, the defendant appeals from his conviction of felony cruelty to animals and suspended sentence of imprisonment. The conviction stems from Defendant's kicking of his neighbor's dog. According to testimony of the dog's owner, Defendant would activate sprinklers in his yard anytime someone with a dog walked by his home. In November of 2019, the dog's owner was walking her fourteen-year-old dachshund-beagle mix, Davis, in front of Defendant's house when she stepped out of the roadway onto Defendant's lawn to avoid a passing car. The occupants of the car then stopped to talk with the dog's owner briefly, whereupon Defendant emerged from his home and proceeded to kick Davis in the stomach. The dog's owner called the police and the dog was transported to an emergency veterinarian because he was "lifeless" and "limp." Defendant was ultimately charged, indicted, and convicted of felonious cruelty to animals. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge of felonious cruelty to animals because a single kick was insufficient to show that Defendant "cruelly beat" the dog; and (2) that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor cruelty to animals. This court first addressed whether a single kick to a dog was sufficient to meet the definition of "cruelly beat." Looking first at the standard dictionary definition of "beat," the court found that the words, “cruelly beat” can apply to any act that causes the unjustifiable pain, suffering, or death to an animal, even if it is just one single act. In fact, the court stated, "[t]o hold otherwise would allow a person to kick a dog so hard they suffer life-threatening injuries—such as the case here—but not be subject to felonious cruelty to animals because it was 'just' one kick." Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. As to the lesser included offense instruction, this court found that there was no evidence of error, let alone plain error, since the jury would have likely found Defendant guilty of felonious animal cruelty based on the evidence presented. No reversible error occurred and Defendant's conviction was affirmed.

Summary: This Utah law states that a person may not use a computer or other device to remotely control the aiming and discharge of a firearm or other weapon for hunting an animal. Violation is a class A misdemeanor.

Summary: This Oregon chapter deals with animal testing in cosmetics. Under the chapter, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. Limited exceptions exist. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation this act incurs a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first day of the violation and not more than $1,000 for each day that the violation continues.

Summary: Relevant legal documents concerning investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center in Cali, Colombia.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action to challenge the Prince George's County, Maryland Pit Bull Ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert multiple due process and equal protection claims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as several violations of the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance bans the keeping of pit bull terriers in the county, and requires any pit bull owners at the time the ordinance was adopted to register the dog, pay a fee, maintain a secure kennel, and keep the dog secure at all times. The court in this case found that the plaintiffs lack standing, since they could not show an injury in fact relating to the county's enforcement of the ordinance, the county has returned seized dogs to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been afforded due process through the county's administrative process.