Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Impound - Rabies. § 68-8-109. Observation; confinement or quarantine. | T. C. A. § 68-8-109 | TN ST § 68-8-109 | This Tennessee statute provides that if any animal has bitten any person, is suspected of having bitten any person or is for any reason suspected of being infected with rabies, the animal may be required to be placed under an observation period either by confinement or by quarantine for a period of time deemed necessary by the commissioner or rules of the department. | Statute |
| CA - Historical - 1872: Cruelty to Animals | Cal. Penal Code 597 (1872) | Enacted February 14, 1872 (almost identical with Field's Draft, Section 699), and then read: "Every person who maliciously kills, maims, or wounds an animal, the property of another, or who maliciously and cruelly beats, tortures, or injures any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, is guilty of a misdemeanor." | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Creighton | 639 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Cmwlth.,1994) | 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 68 (1994) |
In this Pennsylvania case, a cat owner challenged a local ordinance that limited the number of cats she could own at her residence (she owned 25 cats that were rescued "mousers" from factories; the ordinance limited ownership to 5). The court noted that the preamble to the ordinance stated that pursuant to the Borough Code and "in the interest of preserving the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents ... [the Borough] desires to limit the number of dogs and cats kept by any one person and/or residence," but did not state what legitimate public health, safety and welfare goals the Borough sought to advance by enacting this ordinance. Thus, from the information before the court, it could not say whether the Borough ordinance here was a reasonable means to effectuate a legitimate governmental goal. |
Case |
| DE - Invasive/non-native - § 802. Non-native wildlife injurious to native wildlife, agriculture, and other interests | 7 Del.C. § 802 | DE ST TI 7 § 802 | This Delaware statute leaves to the discretion of the state whether to authorize an entity or persons to take, harvest, or capture any species of non-native wildlife that is or has the potential to become injurious to native wildlife. | Statute |
| State v. Warren | 439 P.3d 357 (Mt. 2019) | 2019 MT 49; 395 Mont. 15; 2019 WL 926113 (Mt. 2019) | Cathie Iris Warren was convicted of three felony counts of aggravated animal cruelty, five felony counts of aggravated cruelty, and a misdemeanor cruelty to animals count. Warren appealed contending that the district court erred by denying Warren’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search of her commercial kennel property, denying Warren’s Baston challenge, and in imposing costs to be reimbursed by Warren under Montana law. Cathie Iris Warren operated a kennel on her residential property in Libby, Montana. Warren obtained her initial license to operate her business in 2013. In 2016 it was discovered that Warren was operating her kennel despite the fact that her business license had expired in October of 2015. In order to obtain a new license, Warren needed to have an inspection of her property. Warren ended up having three separate inspections of her property. After each inspection, Warren had failed to meet the requirements. The members of the Health Department who were involved in the inspections became concerned that the animals were not being adequately cared for and were not of good health. Warren could not provide appropriate vaccination records for all of her animals. A search warrant was executed on Warren’s property on August 2, 2016. Warren’s animals were seized the same day. Warren moved to suppress the evidence that was obtained arguing that a warrant was required for each inspection that had been conducted on her property. The court concluded that there was no search because Warren did not have an expectation of privacy in her commercial kennel operation that society would consider objectively reasonable. The trial court convicted Warren and found that Warren owed statutorily-imposed costs, including veterinary care, food and supplies, excess hours worked by county employees, and travel costs as well as the shelter’s lost revenue. Warren appealed her conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court of Montana found that Warren treated parts of her home as part of her kennel, therefore, those areas of her home that were searched were considered commercial property which is subject to a less significant expectation of privacy. The Court concluded that the administrative inspection fell within the applicable warrant exception, was reasonable, and did not require a search warrant. Warren also challenged the State’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror (Baston Challenge). The Court concluded that the District Court reached the right conclusion on the Baston challenge but for the wrong reason. Warren’s third challenge was whether the District Court erred in calculating the statutory costs owed by Warren. The Court found that the costs approved by the District Court were reasonably supported by the evidence. The Court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court. | Case |
| United States of America v. Hale | 113 Fed.Appx. 108 | 2004 WL 2367994 |
A couple owned and operated a caviar business. They were convicted of violating the Lacey Act by purchasing and selling paddlefish eggs during the closed season, falsifying records and operating a fish dealership without a license. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This Judgment was Vacated by Hale v. U.S ., 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005). |
Case |
| WA - Hunting - 77.15.210. Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty | West's RCWA 77.15.210 - 220 | WA ST 77.15.210 -220 | This set of laws represents Washington's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, a person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife if the person harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking, or if the person harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking. Violation is a gross misdemeanor. | Statute |
| PA - Furtaking - Subchapter D. Furtaking Regulations | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2361 - 2364 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2361 - 2364 | These Pennsylvania statutes make it unlawful to take, kill, wound, capture or possess any furbearers except during open season and without a permit. It is also illegal to set traps closer than five feet from a den, use a pole trap, deadfall, poison, explosive, chemical, leg-hold trap with teeth on the jaws, to smoke out or dig out any den, to set or place a cage or box trap in the water, or use any trap unless tended every 36 hours and all animals are released or removed. A violation relating to bobcat or otter is a summary offense of the fourth degree; other violations are a summary offense of the fifth degree. | Statute |
| James S. Cable, Plaintiff v. Burrows, Defendant |
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims. |
Pleading | ||
| Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors and Minister for Environment and Heritage | (2006) 42 AAR 262 | [2006] AATA 94 |
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import five Asian elephants. After an initial hearing, further evidence was sought in relation to the condition and nature of the facilities at the zoos. The Tribunal decided that the importation of the elephants should be in accordance with a permit issued under s 303CG of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). |
Case |