Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids | 559 N.W.2d 444 | 1997 Minn. App. LEXIS 203 | Sauk Rapids, Minnesota passed a city ordinance limiting the number of dogs that could be kept in a residential home. The appellants were dog owners, breeders, and Ms. Holt, who also rescued Newfoundland dogs help find new homes for them. The lower court held that the ordinances were unconstitutional, but the city appealed and on appeal the court reversed the finding. Minnesota law granted the municipality the authority to regulate public and private property, including regulating the keeping of dogs on residential property. City Hall received many complaints concerning dogs, so the Sauk Rapids ordinance was introduced by the mayor to address issues with dog odor and noise. Because limiting the number of dogs can reduce odor and noise, the court found that there was a rational relationship between the ordinance and reducing the problems associated with the dogs. The dog owners failed to show that the ordinance was unreasonable. The constitutionality was upheld because the ordinance was rationally related to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community as affected by dogs. | Case | |
| Honeycutt v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. | 890 So.2d 756 (2nd Cir. 2004) |
A driver hit a cow standing in the road and the driver brought suit against the cow's owner and the owner's insurance agency. The trial court held in favor of the driver and the Court of Appeals affirmed based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. |
Case | ||
| HONORABLE DISCHARGE : PAWS V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY | Andrea Vitalich | 1 Animal L. 133 (1995) | This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife. | Article | |
| HONORABLE DISCHARGE: PAWS v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY | Andrea Vitalich | 1 Animal L. 133 (1995) | This article explores the implications of Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Dep't of Navy and presents one possible vision of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in the area of animal protection. The author begins by examining NEPA and the Progressive case, and what the case may mean for marine mammals. Next, the author considers the possible applications of the Progressive holding to the protection of other animals. Finally, the author concludes that NEPA, through reverse impact studies, remains the best hope for preserving this country's wildlife. | Article | |
| Hood River County v. Mazzara | 89 P.3d1195 (Or. 2004) | 193 Or.App. 272 (2004) |
In this Oregon case, the defendant appealed a conviction for violating Hood River County Ordinances (HRCO) under which the owner of a dog may not allow it "to become a public nuisance * * * " by "[d]isturb[ing] any person by frequent or prolonged noises[.]" (Her dog was reported to have barked for six straight hours.) The defendant argued that the ordinances are invalid as applied to her because ORS 30.935 immunizes farm practices from the application of local government ordinances. The defendant operated a farm with a herd of 60 cashmere and angora goats on land that bordered a national forest and used her dogs to keep predators at bay. The Court of Appeals noted that once defendant raised the defense of the right to farm practice, the county had the burden of disproving it, which it failed to do. Further, the trial court erred by disregarding uncontested facts that established defendant's immunity. |
Case | |
| Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe County, Tex | 591 F.3d 431 (Tex., 2009) | 2009 WL 4828742 C.A.5 (Tex.) |
In this Texas case, Hoog-Watson asserted that a search and seizure of her home violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Texas tort law, and sought both monetary and injunctive relief against county officials. On appeal, this Court found that Hoog-Watson presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the the requisite prior criminal proceeding took place, thereby precluding summary judgment. As to County Attorney Murray-Kolb's claim of prosecutorial immunity, this court found that because Murray-Kolb partipated in the search and seizure, an investigative function normally performed by the police, she is protected only by qualified immunity. |
Case | |
| Hopson v. DPP | [1997] C.O.D. 229 |
The owner of a bird of prey had kept it in a wire aviary for at least six weeks, during which it had injured itself by repeatedly flying into the wire mesh. Having been convicted on these facts of an offence of cruelly ill-treating the bird contrary to the first limb of s 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, he appealed, contending that under that limb, unlike the second limb, he should only have been convicted if he was guilty of a positive act of deliberate cruelty. Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that a person could be guilty of cruel ill-treatment of an animal he was responsible for by allowing it to remain in a situation where it was continuing to injure itself, even if he did not desire to bring about the harm. |
Case | ||
| Hopson v. Kreps | 622 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) |
Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action. |
Case | ||
| Horen v. Commonwealth | 479 S.E. 2d 553 (Va. 1997) |
Native American medicine woman and her husband convicted of illegally possessing wild bird feathers in violation of Virginia statute. The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the statute violates RFRA because it does not provide a scheme to possess feathers for religious purposes, as it does for other purposes. Thus, the statute was not religiously neutral because it discriminated based on content and the state did not employ the least restrictive means in advancing its compelling interest. For further discussion on the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| Horse Issues | Policy |