Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Hunting, exotics - 504.295. Prohibited acts; regulations; licenses; inapplicability to alternative livestock | N. R. S. 504.295 | NV ST 504.295 | Under this Nevada statute, unless otherwise provided by statute no person may possess any live wildlife unless he is licensed by the division to do so, capture live wildlife in this state to stock a commercial or noncommercial wildlife facility, or possess or release from confinement any mammal for the purposes of hunting. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to alternative livestock and products made therefrom. | Statute |
| CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS | Title 6 - ANIMALS, Sections 6.04.010 to 6.20.160 |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| 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 | |
| CA - Import, dog - Chapter 1.5. Dog Importation: Health Certificates | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121720 - 121723 | This chapter relates to importation of dogs into California for sale purposes. A person seeking to bring a dog into this state or importing dogs into this state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership shall obtain a health certificate for that dog, completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days prior to the date on which the dog is brought into the state. However, this chapter does not apply to a person who brings a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the ownership of the dog is not expected to change or to dogs used military or law enforcement work. A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 for each dog for which a violation has occurred. | Statute | |
| OR - Vehicle - 811.200. Carrying dog on external part of vehicle; penalties | O.R.S. § 811.200 | This Oregon law states that a person commits a Class D traffic violation if he or she carries a dog upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any automobile or truck that is upon a highway unless the dog is protected by framework, carrier or other device sufficient to keep it from falling from the vehicle. | Statute | |
| RI - Farming - Chapter 1.1. Unlawful Confinement of a Covered Animal | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-1.1-1 to 1.1-6 | RI ST § 4-1.1-1 to 1.1-6 | This Rhode Island chapter of laws was enacted to to prohibit the confinement of calves raised for veal and sows during gestation, subject to exceptions. It becomes effective June 19, 2013. | Statute |
| MT - Exotic pets - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. | MCA 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | MT ST 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | This set of Montana laws covers both "roadside menagerie" (any place where one or more wild animals are kept in captivity for the evident purpose of exhibition or attracting trade, excluding an educational institution or a traveling theatrical exhibition or circus based outside of Montana) and "wild animal menagerie" (any place where one or more bears or large cats, including cougars, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, pumas, cheetahs, ocelots, and hybrids of those large cats are kept in captivity for use other than public exhibition). The latter definition seems to cover the keeping of those listed species as exotic pets. Under the section, it is unlawful for any person to operate a roadside menagerie or wild animal menagerie without a permit. The annual permit fee for five or less animals is $10. The annual permit fee for more than five animals is $25. | Statute |
| Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | 2002 SCC 76 | [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45 |
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled “transgenic animals”. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of “invention” in s. 2 of the Patent Act . |
Case |
| Harvey v. Southern Pac. Co. | 80 P. 1061 (1905) | 46 Or. 505 (1905) |
This is a case involving a train hitting a cow. This case involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow. The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track. |
Case |
| State v. Josephs | 328 Conn. 21, 176 A.3d 542 (2018) | 2018 WL 576792 (Conn. Jan. 30, 2018) | In this Connecticut case, defendant, Delano Josephs appeals his judgment of conviction of a single violation of § 53–247(a). The incident stems from Defendant's shooting of his neighbor's cat with a BB gun. A witness heard the discharge of the BB gun, then saw a man he recognized as defendant walking with a BB gun in his hands in a "stalking" manner. Over a week later, defendant's neighbor noticed blood on her cat's shoulder and brought her cat to the veterinarian who found three or four metal objects that resembled BBs near the cat's spine. After receiving this diagnosis, the cat's owner reported to police that her neighbor was "shooting her cats." Animal control officers then interviewed defendant who admitted he has a BB gun and shoots at cats to scare them away, but "he had no means of hurting any cats." At the trial level, defendant raised the argument that § 53–247(a) requires specific intent to harm an animal. The trial court disagreed, finding the statute requires only a general intent to engage in the conduct. On appeal, defendant argues that since he was convicted under the "unjustifiably injures" portion of § 53–247(a), the trial court applied the wrong mens rea for the crime. In reviewing the statute, this court observed that the use of the term "unjustifiably" by the legislature is meant to distinguish that section from the section that says "intentionally." Thus, the legislature use of two different terms within the same subsection convinced the court that clause under which defendant was convicted is only a general intent crime. On defendant's void for vagueness challenge, the court found that this unpreserved error did not deprive him of a fair trial. A person of ordinary intelligence would understand that shooting a cat for trespassing is not a justifiable act. While the court agreed with defendant that "unjustifiably injures" is susceptible to other interpretations, in the instant case, defendant conduct in killing a companion animal is not permitted under this or other related laws. The judgment was affirmed. | Case |