Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topical Introductions | Welcome to our Topical Introductions Page! Topical Introductions function as portals to more information on specific topics from "ag-gag" to zoos. Each topic introduction contains a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific issue with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from companion animal issues (like dog bite laws, lost pets, and custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. Are you looking for a specific topic? Go to our Purple Navigation Bar and select "Search Materials." From there, go to "Legal Materials Type" and scroll down to "Topical Introductions" to select one of our 90+ different topics. Each topic is listed in alphabetical order. | Policy | |||
| People v. Williams | 15 Cal. App. 5th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017), reh'g denied (Sept. 20, 2017) | 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) | In this case, defendants were convicted of felony dog fighting and felony animal cruelty. On appeal, defendants sought to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the search warrant that led to their convictions. Police officers responding to a report of a thin, loose, horse near the defendants' home entered the property in order to make reasonable attempts to secure the loose horse and determine if there was a suitable corral on the property. The officers knew there had been prior calls to the property in response to reported concerns about the conditions of horses and pit bulls on the property. Further, one officer heard puppies barking inside the home when she knocked on the door trying to contact defendants, and another officer heard a dog whining from inside the garage. There were strong odors of excessive fecal matter reasonably associated with unhealthful housing conditions. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to be concerned there was a dog in distress inside the garage and possibly in need of immediate aid, and the court found there was nothing unreasonable about one officer standing on the front driveway and simply looking through the broken window in the garage door to determine whether the dog he heard making a whining bark was in genuine distress. Nor was it unreasonable for the officers to then proceed to the back yard after having looked in the garage. As a result, the court ruled that the information the officers had justified the issuance of the search warrant, and thus the order denying the motion to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the warrant was affirmed. The defendants' judgments of conviction were also affirmed. | Case | |
| NY - Sharks - Article 13. Marine and Coastal Resources. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 13-0338 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 13-0338 | This New York law prohibits the practice known as "shark finning." The section provides that no person shall possess shark fins in the marine and coastal district unless the requisite shark carcass is also possessed. It defines "finning" as "the removal of a fin, other than the caudal fin, from a shark and not retaining the remainder of the shark's carcass." | Statute | |
| MI - Foxes - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.43101 - 43104 | MI ST 324.43101 - 43104 | These sections lay out the regulations and prohibited acts with regard to foxes in captivity. | Statute | |
| Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State | 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003) | 149 Wash.2d 622 (Wash. 2003) |
A citizen groups filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of Washington seeking a determination that the 2000 initiative 713 barring use of body-gripping traps, sodium fluoroacetate, or sodium cyanide to trap or kill mammals was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found that appellants did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Initiative 713 violated the constitution, and thus affirmed the superior court's denial of the summary judgment motion. The court also held that the initiative was exempt from the constitutional provision prohibiting legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth at full length. |
Case | |
| Snyder v. Bio-Lab, Inc. | 405 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y.Sup.,1978) | 94 Misc.2d 816 (N.Y.Sup.,1978) |
Plaintiffs sought damages after having to slaughter dairy cows that were injured by defendant’s defective machine. The Court held that plaintiffs could recover 1) the fair market value less salvage value of the cows, 2) the loss of profit during the period after the incident when cows of comparable quality became available on the market, and 3) the calculable loss in milk production caused by the incident's negative impact on the milk production level of the remaining cows. |
Case | |
| US - Whales - Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas | FR Doc. 05-2001 | Docket No. 050114009-5009-01; I.D. 011105B |
NMFS announces the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales, and other limitations deriving from regulations adopted at the 2002 Special Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2005, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other limitations will govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). |
Administrative | |
| England, Wales & Scotland - Wild animals - Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 | 1996 CHAPTER 3 | An Act providing protection for wild mammals against certain acts of deliberate harm. “Wild mammal” means any mammal which is not a “protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Schedule 3, Section 13 of the 2006 Act). The following offences are specified in relation to any wild mammal: to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate. The offences require proof of intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. | Statute | ||
| CO - State animals - § 24-80-910.5. State pets | C. R. S. A. § 24-80-910.5 | CO ST § 24-80-910.5 | Dogs and cats that are adopted from Colorado animal shelters and rescues are declared to be the state pets of the state of Colorado. | Statute | |
| ND - Livestock - State Board of Animal Health | NDCC 36-01-00.1 - 36 | ND ST 36-01-00.1 - ND ST 36-01-36 | This Chapter of North Dakota laws deals with the state board of animal health, state veterinarian, and special provisions for keeping certain non-traditional livestock. Section 36-01-08.2 states that any person who keeps a mountain lion, wolf, or wolf hybrid in captivity must obtain an identification number from the state board. Section 36-01-08.4 also provides that a person may not keep a skunk or raccoon in captivity, and that the state board must adopt rules concerning the keeping of a primate, wolf, or wolf-hybrid in captivity. The remainder of the chapter deals primary with infectious disease control in livestock, although section 36-01-31 contains a ban on the keeping of a live venomous reptile. | Statute |