Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Zimberg | 33 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. 1948) | 321 Mich. 655 (Mich. 1948) |
Defendants were charged with having in their possession in the city of Detroit with intent to sell pikeperch (yellow pickerel) that were undersized, contrary to a Michigan statute. In response to defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, the court noted that it is universally held in this country that wild game and fish belong to the state and are subject to its power to regulate and control; that an individual may acquire only such limited or qualified property interest therein as the state chooses to permit. Defendants also contended the statute violated equal protection. The court disagreed, finding the argument is without foundation in fact, as the statute makes no discrimination. |
Case |
| MS - Dangerous Animal - Chapter 3. Crimes Against the Person. | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-45 | MS ST § 97-3-45 | This Mississippi law makes an owner liable for manslaughter if he or she wilfully allows a mischievous animal to go at large, or it goes at large because the owner fails to exercise ordinary care, and the animal, while at large or not confined, kills any human being who took reasonable precautions to avoid the animal. | Statute |
| IL - Ordinances - 5/7. Remittance of fees; Animal Control Fund; use of fund; self-insurance | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/7 | IL ST CH 510 § 5/7 | This Illinois statute provides that all registration fees collected shall be remitted the county Animal Control Fund. This fund shall be set up for the purpose of paying costs of the Animal Control Program. This includes paying claims for loss of livestock or poultry and for other ordinance enacted measures, including the purchase of human rabies anti-serum, human vaccine, the cost for administration of serum or vaccine, minor medical care; paying the cost of stray dog control, impoundment, education on animal control and rabies; or any county or municipal ordinance as established by ordinance of the County Board. In 2013, the statute was amended to provide different provisions for how the fund shall be used for cities with 3 million or more people and for cities with less than 3 million people. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Winddancer | 435 F.Supp.2d 687 (M.D.Tenn., 2006) | 2006 WL 1722432 (M.D.Tenn.) |
This matter comes before the court on a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment filed by the defendant. The defendant, Ed Winddancer, was indicted on six counts relating to possessing and bartering eagle feathers and feathers plucked from other migratory birds. Winddancer did not have standing to challenge the manner in which the MBTA has been administered against him, because applying for a permit under the MBTA would not have been clearly futile. With regard to the BGEPA, the court found that defendant showed that the BGEPA substantially burdens his ability to possess eagle feathers. However, the court found that he did not show that his desire to possess the feathers arises from a sincere religious belief. Further, the court found that the government indeed has a compelling interest in protecting the bald and golden eagle, especially since there is no reasonable forensic method by which law enforcement can determine if a bird was accidentally or intentionally killed, killed a hundred years ago, or killed yesterday. |
Case |
| Nikolic v. Seidenberg | 610 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) |
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract. |
Case | |
| MI - Exotic Pets - Chapter 287. Animal Industry; Large Carnivore Act | M. C. L. A. 287.1101 - 1123 | MI ST 287.1101 - 1123 | This Michigan law bans acquisition and possession of large carnivores (big cats and bears), though it grandfathered animals already owned as pets at the time of the law's enactment. In order to maintain public safety and animal welfare, the state created a strict permit system for those owners who were allowed to keep their already-existing pets. The statute also outlines minimal care requirements, transportation guidelines, and procedures for when a large carnivore suspected of carrying rabies bites a human or livestock. | Statute |
| FL - Ecoterrorism - Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act | West's F. S. A. § 828.40 - 43 | FL ST § 828.40 - 43 | This set of laws comprises the Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Under the Act, a person who intentionally causes physical disruption to the property, personnel, or operations of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property, including animals or records, used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage, commits a felony of the third degree. | Statute |
| Wright v. Fish and Game Commission (unpublished) | 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8091 | 2003 WL 22007258 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) |
The California Court of Appeal upheld the state's Fish and Game Commission’s ferret ban against an equal protection challenge from a ferret owner. The owner argued that the ban discriminated between ferret owners and owners of other companion animals. However, the court found a rational relation between the ban and concerns about wildlife and human health (from attacks and from rabies). |
Case |
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | |
| IN - Veterinary - Article 38.1. Veterinarians. | I.C. 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 | IN ST 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 | 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 |