Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Veterinary - Chapter 11. Veterinary Medicine. | West's Ann. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 4800 - 4920.8 | CA BUS & PROF § 4800 - 4920.8 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| CA - West Hollywood - Chapter 9.48 Animal Control Regulations. | Chapter 9.48, 9.49, 9.50 |
This comprises the City of West Hollywood, California's animal control ordinances. The animal control ordinances of Los Angeles County have been adopted by reference, prohibiting animal nuisances as well as the keeping of dangerous animals. The code also defines and outlines procedures for feral cats. Uniquely, West Hollywood has a ban on onychectomy (“declawing") of domestic cats unless done as a medically necessary procedure, as well as a ban on the sale of fur (with some exceptions). Further, subject to some exemptions, the city prohibits the retail sale of cats and dogs. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| CA - Wild Animal - Chapter 2. Importation, Transportation, and Sheltering of Restricted Live Wild Animals. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2116 - 2203 | CA FISH & G § 2116 - 2203 | The California Legislature adopted this act based on a findings that wild animals are captured for importation and resold in California and that some populations of wild animals are being depleted, that many animals die in captivity or transit, and that some keepers of wild animals lack sufficient knowledge or facilities for the proper care of wild animals. It was the intention of the Legislature to regulate the importation, transportation, and possession of wild animals to protect the native wildlife and agricultural interests against damage from the existence at large of certain wild animals, and to protect the public health and safety in this state. The act defines "wild animal" and classifies them by species. Among other things, the act also includes inspection and permit provisions that govern the treatment of wild animals and the actions that may be taken where they are concerned. | Statute | |
| CA - Zoo - § 602.13. Entering animal enclosure at zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit; punishment; exceptions; other prosec | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 602.13 | CA PENAL § 602.13 | This law makes it an infraction for a person to enter into an animal enclosure at a zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit if that facility is licensed or permitted to display animals and if it posts signs prohibiting entrance into the animal enclosures. | Statute | |
| Cabinet Resource Group v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | 465 F.Supp.2d 1067 (D. Mont. 2006) | 2006 WL 3615512 (D. Mont.) |
The Forest Service builds roads in National Forests, and has to determine what density of road coverage is safe for grizzly bear survival in making its Land Use Plan. Here, the Land Use Plan did not violate the Endangered Species Act, because an agency action is not required to help the survival of an endangered species, it simply may not reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the endangered species, grizzly bears. However, because the Forest Service relied upon a scientific study with acknowledged weaknesses to make its road standards, but failed to adequately address those weaknesses in its Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service violated NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). |
Case | |
| Caging Animal Advocates Political Freedoms: The Unconstitutionality of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act | Andrew Ireland Moore | 11 Animal L. 255 (2005) |
The animal advocacy movement is facing another obstacle, resulting from the creation of the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act (AETA). The Act seeks to create harsh penalties including a Terrorist Registry for acts performed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and ALF-type actors. In addition, the proposed legislation will affect animal advocates not involved with the ALF. However, the model legislation, as written, must pass Constitutional scrutiny. This paper argues that the proposed Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is unconstitutional due to its infringement on the First Amendment, its overbreadth, and its vagueness. |
Article | |
| California Proposition 2: A Watershed Moment for Animal Law | Jonathan R. Lovvorn & Nancy V. Perry | 15 Animal L. 149 (2008) |
This essay explores the legislative and legal campaign to enact California Proposition 2: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, approved by California voters on November 4, 2008. The authors direct the legislation and litigation programs for The Humane Society of the United States, and, along with many other individuals and organizations, were centrally involved in the drafting, campaigning, and litigation efforts in support of the measure. |
Article | |
| California Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood | 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (2007) | 152 Cal. App. 4th 536; 2007 WL 1793052 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 152 Cal.App.4th 536 | This California case centers on an anti-cat declawing ordinance passed by the city of West Hollywood in 2003. On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court concluded West Hollywood's anti-declawing ordinance was preempted by section 460 and entered judgment in favor of the CVMA, declaring the ordinance invalid and enjoining further enforcement. On appeal, however, this Court reversed, finding section 460 of the veterinary code does not preempt the ordinance. Although section 460 prohibits local legislation imposing separate and additional licensing requirements or other qualifications on individuals holding state licenses issued by agencies of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), it does not preclude otherwise valid local regulation of the manner in which a business or profession is performed. | Case | |
| CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. City of West Hollywood, Defendant & Appellant | This California action concerns the adoption of an ordinance in 2003 by the City of West Hollywood that prohibits the de-clawing of house cats. Amici Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF" ), the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (" A V AR" ), and the Paw Project submitted a brief to assist the Court in its determination of whether the ordinance at issue on this appeal legally prohibits non-therapeutic onychectomies (commonly known as " de-clawing") of domestic animals within the City of West Hollywood. The California Superior Court found that the Business and Professions Code section 460 preempts a municipal ordinance that attempts to regulate veterinarian procedures. The Amici contend that the CVMA examines only one section of the Code and disregards other sections that apply. Further, the amici find that the CVMA’s “. . . members have a pecuniary interest in performing the acts that the City has determined to be cruel.” On Friday, June 22, 2007, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 that a city can regulate the conduct of its professionals provided it does not prohibit procedures that state law expressly allows. | Pleading | |||
| Californians for Humane Farms v. Schafer | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4449583 (N.D.Cal.) (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d) | (only the Westlaw cite is available) |
Plaintiff, a nonprofit ballot committee established to sponsor Proposal 2, a State ballot initiative that would result in prohibiting the tethering and confinement of egg laying hens and other farm animals, brought an action against Defendant, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, alleging a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, after Defendant approved a decision by the American Egg Board (the “Egg Board”) to set aside $3 million for a consumer education campaign to educate consumers about current production practices. The United States District Court, N.D. California granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, direct harm to Plaintiff was likely to occur if the injunction was not granted, and that the public interest would be served by granting the preliminary injunction. |
Case |