Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Ordinances - § 3.2-6537. Ordinances; penalties (pet shops) | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6537 | VA ST § 3.2-6537 | This Virginia statute provides that the governing body of any county, city or town may, by local ordinance, require a person operating a pet shop or operating as a dealer in companion animals to obtain a permit. It further outlines the specific requirements the ordinance may provide, including record-keeping and penalties. | Statute | |
| GREEN v. LECKINGTON | 236 P.2d 335 (Or. 1951) | 192 Or. 601 (Or. 1951) |
In this Oregon case, defendant appeals a judgment of $700 in damages obtained against him after he shot plaintiff’s dog. The dog had gone onto to defendant’s property and was chasing his chickens. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that because it was a general verdict, there was no way to determine a basis for the jury’s verdict; specifically, whether erroneous instructions on exemplary damages and the proper measure of damages influenced the verdict. Because the Court had the whole record before it (and in the interest of “harmony between neighbors”), the Court fixed the damages at the true market value of the dog ($250). |
Case | |
| OH - Cruelty - Chapter 1717. Humane Societies. County Humane Societies | R.C. § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | OH ST § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | This chapter relates to the formation and powers of humane societies in Ohio. Under the chapter, a county humane society organized under section 1717.05 of the Revised Code may appoint agents, who are residents of the county or municipal corporation for which the appointment is made, for the purpose of prosecuting any person guilty of an act of cruelty to persons or animals. Such agents may arrest any person found violating this chapter or any other law for protecting persons or animals or preventing acts of cruelty. | Statute | |
| MN - Minneapolis - Title 4: Animals and Fowl (Chapter 76 - Stables) and Title 13 - LICENSES AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 303. HORSE AND CARRIAGE LIVERY SERVICES) | Minneapolis, Minnesota Code of Ordinances §§76.10 - 76.90, 303.10-303.160 |
In these Minneapolis, Minnesota ordinances, a stable or assembly/transfer facility is used exclusively for the purposes of keeping horses used in a licensed horse and carriage livery service. Any horse kept in a stable or an assembly/transfer facility must be registered with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services and must meet the standards of a veterinary examination and certification. Requirements for the construction and operations of a stable or assembly/transfer facility are also provided, as are the provisions for the operations of a horse and carriage livery service. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| ANSON v. DWIGHT | 18 Iowa 241 (1865) | 1865 WL 103 (Iowa) |
This case involved the killing of a dog by defendant's minor son. While the issues on appeal were mostly procedural, the court did find that dogs belong to a class of personal property for which a witness can testify as to their value. |
Case | |
| People v. Tinsdale | 10 Abbott's Prac. Rept. (New) 374 (N.Y. 1868) |
This case represents one of the first prosecutions by Mr. Bergh of the ASPCA under the new New York anti-cruelty law. That this case dealt with the issue of overloading a horse car is appropriate as it was one of the most visible examples of animal abuse of the time. This case establishes the legal proposition that the conductor and driver of a horse car will be liable for violations of the law regardless of company policy or orders.Discussed in Favre, History of Cruelty |
Case | ||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2018) | 2018 WL 1151000 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2018) | In 2012, Iowa passed a statute (Iowa code § 717A.3A) that criminalized gaining access to agricultural facilities under false pretenses and making a false representation on a job application for those facilities. Plaintiffs in this case (animal rights groups including the Animal Legal Defense Fund and PETA) brought suit alleging that the statute was unconstitutional and sought to enjoin the Defendants (governor of Iowa) from enforcing it. Their complaint alleged that the statute violates the First Amendment as discrimination on the basis of content, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by targeting animals rights groups, and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by burdening the freedom of speech. This case decides the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint based on lack of standing and failure to state a claim because the outlawed conduct is not protected by the First Amendment as false statements and is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting private property, thereby not violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denies Defendants' motion with respect to the First Amendment, concluding that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the intent to suppress their message because of their viewpoint. However, the court grants the motion to dismiss for the claim of a Fourteenth Amendment violation because the statute in fact serves a legitimate government purpose in protecting private property. | Case | |
| United States v. Bengis | 2006 WL 3735654 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) |
Defendants were caught illegally over-fishing off the coast of South Africa and selling the fish in the United States, in violation of the Lacey Act. The United States Government could not seek compensation for South Africa under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act because the fish were not property belonging to South Africa. However, the United States Government may be able to seek restitution for the South African Government under the discretionary Victim and Witness Protection Act. Opinion Vacated and Remanded by: U.S. v. Bengis, 631 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir., 2011). |
Case | ||
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population f | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH44, 2005 WL 779150 (F.R.) |
This final rule is a collaborative effort between the FWS and the states of Tennessee and Alabama and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. to reintroduce the boulder darter ( Etheostoma wapiti ) , an endangered fish, and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha ) , a threatened fish to its historical habitat in Lauderdale County Alabama and Lawrence County, Tennessee. This rule provides for Non-essential Experimental Populations (NEP) within the designated area and it establishes limited allowable legal takings in that area. Additionally, this rule also changes the scientific name of the spotfin chub from Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha to Erimonax monachus , to reflect a recent change in the scientific literature. |
Administrative | ||
| State v. Overholt | 193 P.3d 1100 (Wash. App. Div. 3,2008) |
Defendant was convicted of several counts of second degree unlawful hunting of big game after a game agent (“agent”) followed vehicle tracks to Defendant’s home upon finding fresh cow elk gut piles, and Defendant showed the agent two cow elk carcasses hanging in Defendant’s shed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3 found that because the agent was in fresh pursuit of criminal activity and did not enter Defendant’s property with the intent to obtain consent to search in order to evade a search warrant, the agent was not obligated to issue Ferrier warnings, and that suppressing the seized carcasses from evidence would not have altered the outcome of the case in light of the substantial evidence obtained prior to seizing the carcasses. |
Case |