Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH - Initiatives - Issue 1 Prohibition of the hunting of mourning doves | Issue 1, 1998 (failed) | This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition. | Statute | |
| First Time User Tutorial |
Welcome to the Animal Legal & Historical Center!Wondering where to go first?Try the front page |
Basic page | ||
| Australia Animal Protection Law Journal | This page lists the volumes of the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal. Volume 1 (2008) through Volume 9 (2013) are available at the top of page as pdf downloads. Below this list of pdf links is a list of the table of contents for each volume of the journal. The table of contents contains the names of the articles, authors, and page numbers for each journal. More information about the journal is available at the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal website at http://animalprotectionlawjournal.com/. | Policy | ||
| State v. Ancona | 991 A.2d 663 (Conn.App.,2010) | 120 Conn.App. 324 (Conn.App.,2010), 2010 WL 1190539 |
Defendant Michael Ancona appealed his conviction of permitting a dog to roam at large in violation of General Statutes § 22-364(a). The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly held him responsible as a keeper of a dog when the owner was present and known to the authorities, and (2) the state adduced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. The plain language of the statute § 22-364(a) states that an “owner or keeper” is prohibited from allowing a dog to roam on a public highway. Either the owner or keeper or both can be held liable for a violation of the statute. The court also found sufficient evidence that defendant was the keeper of the pit bull: the dog stayed at his house, he initially responded to the incident and tried to pull the dog away, and defendant yelled at the Officer Rogers that she was not to take "his dog." |
Case |
| Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action against the collective Defendants, including Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. This action involved statements and omissions made by the Defendants following a 2013 documentary titled Blackfish. The issues centered on the attendance impact that the documentary had on Seaworld. Company-wide attendance declined in 2013 and 2014, however, several officials of the Company made statements that there was no attendance impact resulting from the documentary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of several experts. The Court ultimately affirmed its tentative rulings, denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s experts, granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Gibson, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis, granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Randolph Bucklin, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. | Case | |
| U.S. v. Chevron USA, Inc. | 2009 WL 3645170 (Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.) | After 35 dead Brown Pelicans were discovered in the space between the inner wall of the caisson and the outer wall of a wellhead, Chevron was charged with a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But, the Court held that the MBTA was clearly not intended to apply to commercial ventures where, occasionally, protected species might be incidentally killed as a result of totally legal and permissible activities. Therefore, at the plea hearing the Court refused to accept the plea of guilty from Chevron. | Case | |
| WA - Lien, cruelty - 60.56.025. Lien created for care of animal seized by law enforcement officer | West's RCWA 60.56.025 | WA ST 60.56.025 | This Washington law states that if a law enforcement officer authorizes removal of an animal pursuant to chapter 16.52 RCW, the person or entity receiving the animal and aiding in its care or restoration to health shall have a lien upon the animal for the cost of feeding, pasturing, and caring otherwise for the animal. | Statute |
| TX - Dallas - Dallas City Code. Volume I. Chapter 7. Animals. | Sec. 7-1.1 - Sec. 7-8.3 |
This comprises Dallas, Texas' animal control and dangerous dog ordinances. Among the provisions is a requirement that an owner of an animal restrain the animal at all times in a fenced yard, in an enclosed pen or structure, or by a tether or leash. Other provisions of interest include an anti-trapping provision; a section that prohibits the carrying or transporting of an animal within the open bed of any moving pickup; and limitations on the number of dogs or cats that residents can maintain based on the size of the lot and proximity to other dwellings. Dallas has a mandatory spay/neuter requirement; an owner of a dog or cat commits an offense if the animal is not spayed or neutered once over six months old (subject to certain exemptions). Further, a person commits an offense if he or she breeds a dog or cat without a valid intact animal permit for the dog or cat. Other provisions include the keeping of prohibited animals, the keeping of roosters, and noise disturbances by animals. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Vanater v. Village of South Point | 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989) |
Village criminal ordinance, which prohibited the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers or other vicious dogs within village limits, was not overbroad, even though identification of a "pit bull" may be difficult in some situations, as there are methods to determine with sufficient certainty whether dog is a "pit bull.". |
Case | |
| TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. He concludes that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. | Article |