Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Silver | 391 P.3d 962 (2017) | 283 Or.App. 847 (2017) |
In this case, the defendant was found guilty on multiple counts of animal abuse after failing to provide minimally adequate care for his herd of alpacas. The defendant was charged with a felony count (Count 1) and a misdemeanor count (Count 6) of first-degree animal abuse. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not merging the multiple guilty verdicts into a single conviction. The state agreed that the trial court did err in its decision not to merge the verdicts; however, the state argued that the mistake should not require resentencing. The defendant argued that the court should follow its previous decisions and order a remand for resentencing. Ultimately, the court remanded the case for resentencing under ORS 138.222(5)(b). The state argued that language of ORS 138.222(5)(b) should be interpreted not to include merger errors. The court disagreed with this argument and relied on its decision in previous cases that interpreted the language of the statute more broadly. Additionally, the court held that if the state’s disapproval of the ORS 138.222(5)(b) is something that should be dealt with by the legislature and not the court. |
Case |
| NY - Hunting, Internet - 11-1906 On-line shoots prohibited. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-1906, McKinney's E. C. L. § 71-0923 | N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§ 11-1906, 71-0923 | This statute prohibits online shooting in the state of New York. Violation of the statute is punishable by a fine of not more than 2,500 dollars. | Statute |
| CA - Research Animals - Chapter 5. Regulation of Use of Animals in Diagnostic Procedures and Medical Research | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1650 - 1677 | CA HLTH & S § 1650 - 1677 | This section regulates the use of animals in medical research. The California Department of Health Services is directed to make rules and regulations providing for satisfactory shelter, food, sanitation, record keeping, and for the humane treatment of animals by persons authorized by the board to raise, keep or to use animals medical research. The department is also authorized to inspect any premises where animals used for the purposes of this section are kept. Violations constitute a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 | The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA) is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Australia. POCTAA establishes certain acts or omissions as offences and also provides defences to a charge under the Act in certain circumstances. POCTAA prohibits cruelty and aggravated cruelty generally, as well as a number of other types of activities, including neglect, confinement, abandonment, failure to act in certain circumstances, some transport-related activities, inappropriate use, mutilation, poisoning, torture, fighting and baiting, certain hunting and trapping related activities, selling severely injured animals and failing to take action where an animal is injured by a vehicle. | Statute | |
| In re: DELTA AIR LINES, INC. | 53 Agric. Dec. 1076 (1994) | 1994 WL 657125 (U.S.D.A.) | The Judicial Officer affirmed the Decision by Chief Judge Palmer (Chief ALJ) assessing civil penalties of $140,000, with $60,000 held in abeyance for 1 year, for transporting 108 dogs and cats in a cargo space that was without sufficient air, causing the death of 32 dogs. The Order also directs Respondent to cease and desist from violating the Act, regulations and standards, and, in particular, to cease and desist from failing to ensure that dogs and cats have a supply of air sufficient for normal breathing. On appeal, the court held that when regulated entity fails to comply with Act, regulations or standards, there is separate violation for each animal consequently harmed or placed in danger. | Case |
| Stephens v. City of Spokane | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 3146390 (E.D.Wash.) | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 3146390 |
Before the court here is defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Plaintiffs claim is based on Spokane's "barking dog" ordinance" for which they were each issued an infraction by animal control officers. Plaintiffs contend the ordinance is void for vagueness. The court disagreed, finding that the ordinance has incorporated the reasonableness standard and is presumptively constitutional. In the ordinance, the citizen of average intellect need not guess at the prohibition of allowing an animal to unreasonably disturb persons by “habitually barking, howling, yelping, whining, or making other oral noises.” |
Case |
| Excerpt Federal Criminal Code of Mexico | Código Penal Federal de Mexico | This excerpt contains the provisions of the Federal Code of Mexico within "Crimes Against the Environment and Environmental Management." It contains a dedicated chapter to biodiversity, where it gives special protection to wildlife. It does not mention protection of domestic animals. However, it contains provisions prohibiting dog fighting (Article 419 Bis). According to Article 1, this code applies to federal crimes committed within the country. | Statute | |
| AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs | AS § 03.55.070 | AK ST § 03.55.070 | This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village. | Statute |
| Anays Rodriguez-Porras, Plaintiff v. Miami-Dade Animal Services, Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County, Defendants |
This Miami-Dade County, Florida case concerns the unauthorized euthanization of the plaintiff's dog, "Cowboy." Cowboy was a beloved family pet who was fitted with an identification microchip in case he was ever lost. In August of 2005, Cowboy got loose after being frightened by a storm and picked up by an animal shelter officer. The plaintiff was inaccurately informed that no dog matching Cowboy's description was at the shelter (records from the shelter showed he was actually picked up the same day he escaped from his home). Five days later, she was informed that Cowboy was at the shelter. After telling the shelter she would be there the next day to pick up Cowboy (since the shelter was closing and would not wait for her to arrive), the shelter euthanized the dog despite assurances to plaintiff that he would be kept safe. Plaintiff sued animal control, the county, and police department for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, wrongful disposition of a body, and negligence. |
Pleading | ||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton | 239 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2002) |
Plaintiffs, twelve conservation organizations and one individual involved in Lynx conservation efforts, challenge a final decision by the USFWS declaring the Lynx in the contiguous United States to be a "threatened," rather than "endangered," species under the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs allege that the designation of the Lynx as threatened is "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," in violation of § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that the Service has violated the ESA by failing to designate "critical habitat" for the Lynx as required by that statute. The Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding that the FWS's conclusion that, "[c]ollectively, the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies do not constitute a significant portion of the range of the DPS," (three of the Lynx's four regions) were collectively not a significant portion of its range was counterintuitive and contrary to the plain meaning of the ESA phrase "significant portion of its range." With regard to the FWS's failure to designate critical habitat, the excessive delays experienced by the FWS ran completely counter to the mandate of the ESA and were without proper justification. |
Case |