Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cover and Introduction, Journal of Animal Law Volume 10 | various | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 1 | This document provides the cover, credits, and introductory remarks for the 10th volume of the Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law. | Article | |
| Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 925 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1991) |
USDA had suspended a kennel owner’s license for 90 days and imposed a fine on the owner for violating AWA regulations. These violations included delivering dogs for transportation in commerce, that were under eight weeks old, failing to hold dogs for at least five days after acquiring them, and refusing APHIS inspections. Owner claimed that such sanctions were excessive. However, the court found that there was willful violation of the AWA, since inspections were refused. Also, ignorance is not considered a defense, and although the owners claimed they did not know the age of the eight-week old puppies, they could have found out. Thus, the sanction was appropriate. |
Case | ||
| Coy v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd. | 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 756 | 2005 Ohio 773 |
A veterinarian's license was revoked by the Ohio Veterinarian Medical Licensing Board and the vet challenged the revocation of his license. The trial court found the vet guilty of gross incompetence and he appealed claiming there was no definition of gross incompetence in the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding no specific definition was required. |
Case | |
| Coyote v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | (no F.Supp. citation) 1994 E.D. California |
Defendant brought a motion after the USFWS denied his application to obtain eagle feathers for religious use where defendant failed to obtain certification from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that he was a member of a federally-recognized tribe. The court held that this requirement is both contrary to the plain reading of that regulation and arbitrary and capricious. For discussion on formerly recognized tribes and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | ||
| CR - Fighting - Prohíbe Espectáculos e Importar Animales Pelea (Pit Bull, Peces Beta) | 11571-G |
(Text of Decree in Spanish). Prohibir en todo el territorio nacional la organización, promoción y realización de todo acto cuyo objetivo sea total o parcialmente la pelea entre animales, como por ejemplo perros APTB (American pit bul terrier), peces siameses (Beta) y cualquier otro tipo de animal normalmente reconocido como apto para pelear. |
Statute | ||
| CR - Pets - (Decree 31626 on Pet Ownership) Reglamento para la Reproducción y Tenencia Responsable de Animales de Compañía | Decree 31626-S (2004) |
This Costa Rica law regulates the responsible ownership of pets (text provided in Spanish). |
Statute | ||
| CR - Veterinary - General Law on the National Service of Animal Health (Law 8495) | No. 8495 |
The law that organizes the Veterinary Official Service of Costa Rica (SENASA), the government institution that is responsible for animal welfare and many other aspects related to animal production and the protection of human and animal health. |
Statute | ||
| CR - Welfare - BIENESTAR DE LOS ANIMALES (Law 7451 on Animal Welfare) | Law 7451 |
(Text in Spanish). The law that regulates animal welfare in Costa Rica; its terms are based on the results of the OIE conference in Australia in 1994. |
Statute | ||
| Cramer v. Harris | 591 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2015) | Plaintiff William Cramer filed this lawsuit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 2, which requires California egg farmers to house egg laying hens in less restrictive enclosures. Plaintiff argued that, because Proposition 2 did not specify a minimum cage size for egg laying hens, a reasonable person could not discern whether the enclosures being used were compliant with Proposition 2 and that the law is void for vagueness as a result. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the court reasoned that Proposition 2 did not need to specify a minimum amount of space per bird, and that the space requirements mandating that each hen be able to extend its limbs fully and turn around freely can be discerned using objective criteria. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the lawsuit. | Case | ||
| Crawford v. Van Buren County, Ark. | 678 F.3d 666 (C.A.8 (Ark.)) | 2012 WL 1813423 (C.A.8 (Ark.)) |
In this § 1983 action, defendant kennel operator alleged taking of private property without just compensation, unreasonable search and seizure, and due process violations in relation to seizure of dogs, and that the local humane society conspired with government entities. On appeal of summary judgment for the defendants, the court found her claims against the county were barred, and that she failed to first exhaust her administrative remedies. The animal control officer was acting pursuant to a valid search warrant when she entered the property to seize the dogs, and, under an animal cruelty plea agreement, had authority to inspect Crawford's premises. With regard to the Humane Society defendants, the court found summary judgment proper because there was no evidence amounting to a civil conspiracy to seize the dogs for personal gain. |
Case |