Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In the Matter of a Protective Order for Jean Marie Primrose - Cat Champion Corporation, Appellant v. Jean Marie Primrose, Respon | This series of actions stemmed from the seizure of 11 cats from Jean Marie Primrose from her Linn County, Oregon home. The cats were neglected, thin, and missing patches of hair when they were removed from Ms. Primrose's home and placed in the custody of Cat Champion, a non-profit rescue organization. Ms. Primrose was charged with criminal animal neglect in the second degree, but the trial court dismissed those charges because she was found incompetent due to a cognitive impairment. Because the case was dismissed, the cats were not forfeited by law and Primrose remained the rightful owner. Further, Cat Champion had incurred a $32,510 debt in caring for the animals. In lieu of returning the cats to Ms. Primrose, who Cat Champions felt was incapable of adequately caring for them, Cat Champions filed a petition for a limited protective order as a fiduciary for the care and placement of the cats. The probate court ruled against Cat Champions, finding that nothing in the relevant chapter allowed the court to permanently divest Ms. Primrose of her personal property (the cats). On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's order and held that the probate court did indeed have authority to enter a limited protective order under ORS 125.650 as a "fiduciary necessary to implement a protective order." | Pleading | |||
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NSF | LEXSEE 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22315 |
The Center for Biological Diversity sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the National Science Foundation from continuing its acoustical research in the Gulf of California. The scientists who conducted the acoustical research in the Gulf of California, which was an environmentally sensitive area, used an array of air guns to fire extremely high-energy acoustic bursts into the ocean. The sound from the air guns was as high as 263 decibels (dB) at the source. The government had acknowledged that 180 dB caused significant injury to marine mammals. The court found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), governed the activities of the scientists on the research vessel, and that any injury or harassment to marine mammals in the course of the research project in the Gulf of California, outside the territorial waters of Mexico, would violate the MMPA. |
Case | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 21, Part 1 |
Animal Law Index Volume 21, Part 1 (Fall 2014)ARTICLES
|
Policy | |||
| FL - Initiatives - Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races | Amendment 13 | A proposed revision relating to ending dog racing; creating new sections in Article X and Article XII of the State Constitution to prohibit the racing of, and wagering on, greyhounds and other dogs after a specified date. | Statute | ||
| VA - Ordinances - § 3.2-6543. Governing body of any locality may adopt certain ordinances | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6543 | VA ST § 3.2-6543 | This Virginia statute provides that the governing bodies of counties, cities, and towns of the Commonwealth are hereby authorized to adopt, in their discretion, ordinances which parallel statutory sections dealing with licensing of dogs, taxation, impoundment, and regulation of dangerous dogs. It also provides that nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent or restrict any local governing body from adopting local animal control ordinances which are more stringent than the relevant state statutory sections. It further outlines how ordinances may impose civil penalties for violations of the above. | Statute | |
| OH - Horse slaughter - Chapter 919. Horse Meat | R.C. § 919.01 - 919.99 | OH ST § 919.01 - 919.99 | These Ohio statutes deal with horse slaughter and horse meat. Any person who has any establishment that processes and sells horse meat for human food must be licensed by the department of agriculture. The statutes also stipulate certain labeling, signage, and record-keeping requirements. A violation is a first degree misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Hetzel | 385 F.Supp. 1311 (D. Mo. 1974) |
Defendant finds a decaying eagle carcass on a wildlife preserve. He then removes the legs and talons of the eagle to bring to a Boy Scout function. The court reverses his conviction (and $1.00 fine) finding that he did not possess the requisite intent. The court determines that a conviction under the BGEPA demands a specific intent. For further discussion on intent under the BGEPA see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| US - Pets and housing - § 5.380 Public housing programs: Procedure for development of pet rules. | 24 C.F.R. § 5.380 | This rule states that Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) must consult with tenants of projects on rules for pets in projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. PHAs shall send to the responsible HUD field office, copies of the final (or amended) pet rules, as well as summaries or copies of all tenant comments received in the course of the tenant consultation. | Administrative | ||
| MO - Liberty - Breed - Sec. 4-24. - Keeping of pit bull dogs prohibited. | LIBERTY, MO., CITY CODE §§ 4-24 - 4-25 (2010) |
In Liberty, Missouri, it is be unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions for pit bull dogs already residing in the city. Such dogs may remain as long as the owner complies with certain requirements, such as proper registration, proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog-Pit Bull," keeping $50,000 liability insurance, and taking identification photographs. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation may be subject to seizure and impoundment. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Grise v. State | Grise v. State, 37 Ark. 456 (1881). |
The Defendant was charged under the Arkansas cruelty to animal statute for the killing of a hog that had tresspass into his field. The Defendant was found guilty and appealed. The Supreme Court found that the lower court commited error by instructing the jury that all killing is needless. The Court reveresed the judgment and remanded it for further consideration. |
Case |