Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Death of the Monkey Ovechkin at Augusta University |
|
Policy | ||
| Allen v. Pennsylvania Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals | 488 F.Supp.2d 450 (M.D.Pa., 2007) | 2007 WL 1454514 (M.D.Pa.) |
This is a § 1983 civil rights action brought by Robert Lee Allen against certain state actors arising from their search of his property, seizure of his farm animals, and prosecution of him for purported violations of Pennsylvania's cruelty-to-animals statute. The animals Allen typically acquires for his rehabilitation farm are underweight, in poor physical condition, and suffer from long-standing medical issues. After receiving a telephone complaint regarding the condition of the horses and other livestock on Allen's farm, humane officers visited Allen's property to investigate allegations. Subsequently, a warrant to seize eight horses, four goats, and two pigs was executed on a day when the officers knew Allen would be away from his farm with "twenty five assorted and unnecessary individuals." The court held that the farmer's allegations that state and county humane societies had a custom, policy or practice of failing to train and supervise their employees stated § 1983 claims against humane societies. Further, the defendants were acting under color of state law when they searched and seized farmer's property.
|
Case |
| CA - Trapping - Chapter 2. Fur-Bearing Mammals Article 2. Fur Dealer License | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4030 - 4043 (repealed) | CA FISH & G § 4030 - 4043 | Note: §§ 4030 to 4043. Repealed by Stats.2019, c. 216 (A.B.273), § 11, eff. Jan. 1, 2020. Formerly, these provisions outline the requirements for fur dealers. Every person engaging in the business of buying, selling, trading or dealing in raw furs of fur-bearing mammals or nongame mammals is a fur dealer and shall procure a fur dealer license. An exception is made for those dealers that trap and sell raw furs which he has lawfully taken, or a domesticated game breeder selling raw furs of animals which he has raised. Fur dealers are required to maintain complete recordings for all of the furs they trade or sell and are prohibited from purchasing raw fur of any fur-bearing mammal or nongame mammal from any person who does not hold a valid trapping license, fur dealer license, or fur agent license. | Statute |
| Ballas v Ballas | 3 Cal.Rptr. 11 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1960) | 178 Cal.App.2d 570 |
In a divorce decree, lower court awarded dog and car to husband; the wife appealed. Appellate court found that distinction between community and separate property was unimportant and held that wife was entitled to the dog, but the husband remained entitled to the car. |
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE MAHARASHTRA ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1976 | 9 of 1977 | The Act, specific to the western Indian state of Maharashtra, prohibits cow slaughter. Persons may also not slaughter other bovines such as bulls, bullocks, female buffaloes and buffalo calves without obtaining a certificate from the 'competent authority'. These animals may be slaughtered only at specified places. Committing an offence under the Act may lead to fines or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| LA - Reptiles - § 632.5.1. Constrictors and poisonous snakes | LSA-R.S. 56:632.5.1 | LA R.S. 56:632.5.1 | This Louisiana law provides that certain species of constrictor snakes in excess of eight feet long and venomous snakes shall only be allowed by permit issued by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries except for animals kept by animal sanctuaries, zoos, aquariums, wildlife research centers, scientific organizations, and medical research facilities as defined in the Animal Welfare Act. Violation of the provisions of this Section or rules adopted pursuant thereto shall constitute a class three violation. | Statute |
| US - Civil Rights - Civil Action for Deprivation of Civil Rights | 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 | This law is the primary means by which a person can bring a violation of a constitutional right. To prevail in a claim under section 1983, the plaintiff must meet two elements: a person subjected the plaintiff to conduct that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The statute provides immunity for persons operating under "color of law" acting in their official capacities. | Statute | |
| City of Onida v. Brandt | 959 N.W.2d 297 (S.D., 2021) | 2021 S.D. 27 | The City of Onida (the City) filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking authorization from the circuit court to euthanize two dogs owned by the Appellants as “vicious animals” under Onida ordinances or, alternatively, based upon a determination that the dogs were dangerous under state law (SDCL 7-12-29). The circuit court concluded the City could not require the dogs to be euthanized under the ordinance but found that the requirements of SDCL 7-12-29 were met. Appellants appeal the circuit court's order directing the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs pursuant under state law. In 2020, the appellants' dogs attacked a neighbor's smaller dog just outside of the neighbor's door to their home. The attack caused numerous bite wounds and internal injuries to the smaller dog who eventually died. Prior to this event, there were two other incidents where appellants' dog rushed up to a woman working outside her house barking aggressively and another incident involving the same neighbor's dog who was the victim in the instant case. The sheriff was summoned for the prior incidents, although no formal action was taken and appellants beefed up measures to keep the dogs in their yard. After the attack on the neighbor's dog, the sheriff formally declared the dogs "vicious animals" under the city's ordinance and obtained a TRO to remove the dogs to keep them at a nearby kennel until further disposition from the court. Ultimately, the City filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting authorization for euthanasia of the dogs. Alternatively, the City sought a determination of dangerousness under SDCL 7-12-29 and requested an order allowing the sheriff to dispose of the dogs. The court found Appellants violated SDCL 40-34-2 by owning a “dog that chases, worries, injures, or kills any ... domestic animal ....” The court further found under the Ordinance that the dogs were improperly unleashed and running at large within city limits and that the dogs were “vicious animals.” However, the court determined the City could not require Appellants to euthanize the dogs under the Ordinance because no “vicious animal” notice had been given to Appellants prior to the fatal attack on the neighbors’ dog. However, the court found that Appellants’ dogs were dangerous under SDCL 7-12-29 and authorized the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs. The circuit court stayed the order pending this appeal. On appeal, the appellants challenge the City's authority to request that the Sheriff dispose of the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29 after the circuit court denied such relief under the Ordinance. Appellants also argue that the circuit court erred in determining the dogs were dangerous and authorizing the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29 in absence of a showing that the Department of Health had been consulted. The Supreme Court held that presented on appeal is whether the circuit court could order the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29. SDCL 7-12-29 allows a sheriff to take possession of any animal suspected of being dangerous, continue to hold the animal until a formal determination of dangerousness can be made, and dispose of the animal through humane means if it is determined to be dangerous. Appellants claim that the court improperly used a "hybrid" application of both state and local law. This Court disagreed, finding that appellants presented no authority that the sheriff could not act under state law as opposed to city law. Appellants’ second argument is that circuit court erred by entering an order to permit the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs under the statute without first requiring consultation with the Department of Health for the purpose of rabies control. The Court agreed that the text of SDCL 7-12-29 includes both public safety and public health considerations that requires a formal consultation. However, the Court found this error to be harmless and the failure to consult with the Department of Health had any effect on the court's decision, or that it harmed the substantial rights of the Appellants. In fact, it was stipulated that both dogs were vaccinated against rabies and no continuing public health risk existed since the dog victim died 12 months prior at the veterinarian. The Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court ordering that “the Sheriff may now dispose of [Appellants’ two dogs] through humane euthanasia.” | Case |
| 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 |
| MO - Veterinary - Chapter 340. Veterinarians. | V. A. M. S. 340.010 - 405 | MO ST 340.010 - 350 | 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 |