Justia Animal / Dog Law Opinion Summaries

Two individuals brought their dogs to a veterinary clinic for treatment. Dissatisfied with the care provided, both posted negative reviews on social media, detailing their experiences and criticizing the clinic’s practices. These posts were shared on multiple community Facebook pages and received significant engagement from the local community, including comments from others about the clinic. After the posters refused the clinic’s request to remove the reviews, the clinic filed a lawsuit for defamation per se against both individuals, alleging numerous defamatory statements.In the District Court for El Paso County, the defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their posts were protected as speech on a public issue. The district court denied the motion, finding that the statements concerned a private business dispute and did not address matters of public interest. The court also found that, even if the statute applied, the clinic had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its claims. On appeal, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed that the posts provided consumer information relevant to the public but concluded they did not contribute to a broader public discussion, largely because they were motivated by personal animosity and aimed to harm the clinic’s business.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and determined that the lower courts had applied the wrong legal standard. The Supreme Court held that courts must use a two-step test to determine if speech is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute: first, whether an objective observer could reasonably understand the speech, in context, to be made in connection with a public issue or interest; and second, whether the speech contributed to public discussion of that issue. The court further held that the speaker’s motive is irrelevant to this analysis. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the matter was remanded for application of the correct standard. View "Lind-Barnett v. Tender Care Veterinary Ctr." on Justia Law

Five elderly African elephants, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo, reside at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NRP) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of the elephants, seeking their transfer to a suitable elephant sanctuary. NRP argued that the elephants were unlawfully confined and had a right to bodily liberty due to their cognitive and social complexities. The petition included affidavits from animal biologists supporting the elephants' autonomy and complex needs.The El Paso County District Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Colorado's habeas corpus statute only applies to persons, not nonhuman animals. The court accepted NRP's allegations as true but concluded that the elephants lacked standing to seek habeas relief. The court also determined that NRP did not have proper next friend status to bring the petition on the elephants' behalf. Additionally, the court found that NRP failed to make a prima facie case that the elephants were unlawfully confined, as the zoo was operating within legal standards.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the habeas corpus statute in Colorado applies only to persons, defined as human beings, and does not extend to nonhuman animals. The court rejected NRP's argument to rely on common law for broader habeas corpus rights, emphasizing that the statute explicitly limits relief to persons. The court also noted that recognizing nonhuman animals as persons would have significant legal and societal implications. Consequently, the elephants did not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Soc'y" on Justia Law

While walking past respondent Alexander Trujillo’s home on his way to the playground, petitioner N.M. became frightened when Trujillo’s two pit bulls rushed at the front-yard fence. Although the dogs did not get out of the yard or touch N.M., N.M. ran across the street and was struck by a passing van, which seriously injured him. N.M., by and through his parent and legal guardian, sued Trujillo for, as pertinent here, negligence. Trujillo moved to dismiss that claim, contending that N.M. had not sufficiently pleaded the requisite element of duty. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, and in a split, published decision, a division of the court of appeals affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, and found given the circumstances presented here, concluded Trujillo did not owe N.M. a duty of care. Because N.M.’s claim against Trujillo was predicated on Trujillo’s alleged nonfeasance, or failure to act, and because this case was distinguishable from cases in which a dangerous or vicious animal attacks and directly injures someone, N.M. was required to plead a special relationship between himself and Trujillo in order to establish the duty of care necessary to support a negligence claim. View "N.M. v. Trujillo" on Justia Law