Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mangy Curs and Stoned Horses: Animal control in the District of Columbia from the beginnings to about 1940 |
|
Policy | |||
| Midcoast Fishermen's Ass'n v. Gutierrez | 592 F.Supp.2d 40 (D.D.C.,2008) | 2008 WL 5401534 (D.D.C.) | Plaintiffs filed suit seeking review of the Department of Commerce’s (the “Agency”) decision to deny their petition for emergency action to address continued overfishing in the Northeastern multispecies fisheries by excluding midwater trawl vessels from groundfish closed areas. After the administrative record was filed, and the Agency certified that it was the administrative record for the decision, Plaintiffs moved to compel completion of the administrative record. The United States District Court, District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion, finding that Plaintiffs failed to show that the Agency blatantly ignored specific readily available information, the fact that the Agency based its decision on data from a two year chronological time span did not render the record incomplete, supplementing the record with bycatch data from an earlier time period would not provide any background information useful to the resolution of the case, and that the record contained sufficient information to allow the Court to determine what process the Agency followed in making its decision. | Case | |
| Juelfs v. Gough | 41 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2002) | In this case, the husband and wife had agreed to shared ownership of their dog, which the lower court incorporated into its order.Based on danger the dog faced by other dogs in the wife’s home and increased contention between the parties, the lower court next gave the husband custody with an order for the wife’s visitation, and finally awarded sole custody to the husband. The state’s Supreme Court affirmed the modified order. | Case | ||
| SC - Initiative - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish | Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2010) (passed) |
The legislature summary for the proposed amendment states: "[a] joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources." It passed with 89% voting "yes." |
Statute | ||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 11 |
Sumário / Table of Contents
|
Policy | |||
| CA - Cruelty, reporting - § 11199. Reports of animal abuse, cruelty, or neglect by county employees | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 11199 | CA PENAL § 11199 | This California law states that any employee of a county child or adult protective services agency, while acting in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, who has knowledge of or observes an animal whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of cruelty, abuse, or neglect, may report the known or reasonably suspected animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect to the entity or entities that investigate reports of animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect in that county. The statute details requirements for the reports. | Statute | |
| State v. Schuler (Unpublished) | 1997 WL 76337 (Unpub. Minn. 1997) |
This Minnesota lawsuit arose from the enforcement of a Little Canada ordinance prohibiting the keeping of more than three adult dogs in any residential dwelling within the city's residentially zoned districts. In reviewing a challenge to the law, the court first noted that a city's police power allows it both to regulate the keeping of animals, and to define nuisances and provide for their abatement. Further, municipal ordinances are presumptively constitutional and the burden rests on the party challenging it. Here, Schuler failed to offer evidence that regulating the number of dogs per household was unrelated to controlling the problems of dog noise and odor as they affect the health and general welfare of the community. |
Case | ||
| TX - Breeders - Chapter 91. Dog or Cat Breeders Program | 16 TX ADC §§ 91.1 to 91.202 | Tex. Admin. Code tit. 16, §§ 91.1 to 91.202 | These are the regulations for the Texas Dog or Cat Breeder Act. | Administrative | |
| WA - Trusts - Chapter 11.118. Trusts--Animals | West's RCWA 11.118.005 - 110 | WA ST 11.118.005 - 110 | The purpose of this chapter is to recognize and validate certain trusts that are established for the benefit of animals (nonhuman animal with vertebrae). The trust can be for one or more animals provided they are individually identified or labeled in the instrument so that they may be easily identified. Unless otherwise provided in the trust instrument or in this chapter, the trust will terminate when no animal that is designated as a beneficiary of the trust remains living. | Statute | |
| VT - Brattleboro - Chapter 3: Animals and Fowl (Article 2: Dogs, Wolf-Hybrids) | Brattleboro, Vermont Code of Ordinances, Article 2: Dogs, Wolf-Hybrids, §§ 3-27 to 3-34 |
In Brattleboro, Vermont, owners or keepers of assistance dogs are exempt from the license surcharge fee, but are still required to pay a basic license fee plus a fee for the statewide rabies program. When obtaining a license, owners or keepers of assistance dogs must provide documentation of their assistance dog’s training. The following ordinances also indicate which dogs are eligible as assistance dogs. |
Local Ordinance |
