Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Schuler | --- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 1894482 (Ohio Ct. App., 2019) | 2019 -Ohio- 1585 | Appellant is appealing an animal cruelty conviction. A deputy dog warden received a report from a deputy sheriff who observed a pit bull on appellant's property who was unable to walk and in poor condition while responding to a noise complaint. Appellant released the dog to the deputy and the dog was later euthanized. While the deputy was on appellant's property she observed two other dogs that were extremely thin which prompted the deputy to return to the appellant's house the next day, but the appellant was in the hospital. The deputy later returned to the appellant's home a few days later and the appellant's ex-wife allowed the deputy to perform an animal welfare check on the property. Two Australian cattle dogs were very muddy and in an outdoor kennel with no food or water. Numerous chickens, rabbits, mice, snakes, and raccoons were also observed inside and outside the house all living in cramped, filthy conditions. The deputy went to the hospital and the appellant signed a waiver releasing the raccoons and snakes to the wildlife officer, but the appellant refused to release the other animals to the deputy. As a consequence a search warrant was obtained. "Two raccoons, 3 black rat snakes, 8 dogs, 7 chickens, 3 roosters, 17 rabbits, 5 rats, 200 mice, and 2 guinea pigs were removed from the property." Appellant was charged by complaints with five counts of cruelty to animals and two counts of cruelty to companion animals. An additional complaint was filed charging appellant with one count of cruelty to a companion animal (the euthanized pit bull). The appellant raised 3 errors on appeal. The first error is that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him of animal cruelty. The Court found that the complaint charging the appellant with animal cruelty in counts B, C, and D were not valid because it did not set forth the underlying facts of the offense, did not provide any of the statutory language, and failed to specify which of the 5 subsections the appellant allegedly violated. Therefore, the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict the appellant and the animal cruelty conviction regarding the three counts for the rabbits was vacated. The second error appellant raised was that his conviction for cruelty to companion animals for the two Australian cattle dogs was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court overruled appellant's second error because it found that the state had presented sufficient evidence to show that the appellant negligently failed to provide adequate food and water for the Australian cattle dogs. The third error the appellant raised was that the Court erred by ordering him to pay $831 in restitution. The Court also overruled appellant's third error since the appellant stipulated to paying the restitution. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all other respects. | Case | |
| OH - Warrensville Heights - Breed - 505.20 Pit Bull Terriers. | WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS, OH., CODIFIED ORDINANCES § 505.20 (1987) |
In Warrensville Heights, Ohio, no person may own, keep or harbor a pit bull terrier, defined as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, or any mixture. No exceptions are made, |
Local Ordinance | ||
| WV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W. Va. Code, § 7-10-1 to 5; W. Va. Code, § 61-8-19 to 23; W. Va. Code, § 19-33-1 - 5 | WV ST § 7-10-1 to 5; WV ST § 61-8-19 to 23; WV ST § 19-33-1 - 5 | These West Virginia statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. If any person cruelly mistreats, abandons or withholds proper sustenance, including food, water, shelter or medical treatment, necessary to sustain normal health and fitness or to end suffering or abandons any animal to die, or uses, trains or possesses any domesticated animal for the purpose of seizing, detaining or maltreating any other domesticated animal, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor. If any person intentionally tortures or maliciously kills an animal, or causes, procures or authorizes any other person to torture or maliciously kill an animal, he or she is guilty of a felony. The provisions of this section do not apply to lawful acts of hunting, fishing, trapping or animal training or farm livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife kept in private or licensed game farms if kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife or game farm production and management. The section also prohibits animal fighting, making it a felony if the animal is a dog or other fur-bearing animal ("canine, feline, porcine, bovine, or equine species whether wild or domesticated"), and a misdemeanor if not (i.e., cockfighting). | Statute | |
| Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v. Salazar | 606 F.3d 1160, (C.A.9 (Ariz.),2010) | 2010 WL 2220036; 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7030; 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8233 |
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association (Plaintiff) challenged Fish and Wildlife Service's (Defendant) designation of critical habitat for Mexican spotted owls under the Endangered Species Act. The issues were whether Defendant impermissibly included unoccupied areas as critical habitat, and whether Defendant impermissibly employed the baseline approach in its economic analysis. The Court held that 1) Defendant did not designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat because “occupied” areas included areas where the species was likely to be present, and 2) that Defendant properly applied the baseline approach because the economic impact of listing a species as endangered was not intended to be included in the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation. |
Case | |
| SC - Endangered Species - Chapter 15. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | Code 1976 § 50-15-10 to 90 | SC ST § 50-15-10 to 90 | These statutes comprise the "South Carolina Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act." Included in the provisions are definitions and criteria related to the listing of endangered species. Violation of the provisions constitutes misdemeanors of varying penalties as well as forfeiture of equipment used in the illegal takings. | Statute | |
| People v. Sanchez | 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 437 (Cal. App. 2001) |
Defendant on appeal challenges six counts of animal cruelty. The court affirmed five counts which were based on a continuing course of conduct and reversed one count that was based upon evidence of two discrete criminal events. |
Case | ||
| US - Endangered - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List | 2003 WL 1697383 (F.R.) | RIN 1018-AF20; FR Doc. 03-7018 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) hereby changes the classification of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We establish three distinct population segments (DPS) for the gray wolf in the conterminous United States. Gray wolves in the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS are reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population. Gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS retain their previous endangered or experimental population status. All three existing gray wolf experimental population designations are retained and are not affected by this rule. Gray wolves are removed from the protections of the Act in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern States where the species historically did not occur. We establish a new special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened Western DPS to increase our ability to respond to wolf-human conflicts outside the two experimental population areas in the Western DPS. A second section 4(d) special regulation applies provisions similar to those previously in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. We find that these special rules are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS. The classification, under the Act, of captive gray wolves is determined by the location from which they, or their ancestors, were removed from the wild. This final rule does not affect the protection currently afforded by the Act to the red wolf (Canis rufus), a separate species found in the southeastern United States that is listed as endangered. |
Administrative | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 5 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 5 (1999)
INTRODUCTIONFREE SPEECH, ANIMAL LAW, AND FOOD ACTIVISM |
Policy | |||
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 7 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. VII (2011)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6528. Amount of license tax | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6528 | VA ST § 3.2-6528 | This Virginia statute provides that the governing body of each county or city shall impose by ordinance a license tax on the ownership of dogs within its jurisdiction. With regard to cats, the governing body of any county, city or town which has adopted an ordinance requiring licensing of cats shall impose by ordinance a license tax on the ownership of cats within its jurisdiction. The tax amount may vary depending on whether the pet is male or female, and neutered or spayed. | Statute |