Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viva! v. Adidas | 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 (Cal., 2007) | 2007 WL 2080000 (Cal. 2007), 41 Cal.4th 929 | Viva, an animal protective organization, filed action against Adidas shoe retailer alleging that it was violating a state statute banning the import of products made from Australian kangaroo hide into California. On cross motions for summary judgment, the original court sided with Adidas, on the ground that state statute was preempted by federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The appeals court affirmed, however the California Superior Court reversed, holding that the state statute was not preempted by federal law. | Case |
| MD - Wildlife - § 10-427. Organized killing contests prohibited | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-427 | MD NAT RES § 10-427 | This Maryland statute, enacted in 2021, states that a person may not sponsor, conduct, or participate in a contest organized in the State that has the objective of killing a coyote, fox, or raccoon for prizes or monetary rewards. A person is subject to a fine of $50 for each coyote, fox, or raccoon killed in violation of this law. | Statute |
| CA - Abandonment - § 597.1. Failure to care for animals; misdemeanor; powers and duties | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.1 | CA PENAL § 597.1 | Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. The statutes also creates a duty in peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to cause the animal to be killed or rehabilitated and placed in a suitable home on information that the animal is stray or abandoned. | Statute |
| Brazil - Dogs and Cats - Sao Paulo State Law n. 12.916 (no kill ordinance) | Sao Paulo State Law n. 12.916, concerning stray dogs and cats |
Sao Paulo state becomes the first Brazilian state to enact a law banning the killing of stray dogs and cat as a population control practice. The law n. 12.916 was enacted in April 16, 2008. The law asserts that animal control agencies shall work together with non-profits and other organizations to reach the law’s objective which is the sterilization of domestic animals as a form of population control, to establish adoption centers, and to put forward adoption programs for stray animals. In addition, the animal control agencies shall promote educational programs about responsible pet ownership. |
Statute | |
| American Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v. Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus | 2008 WL 3411666 (D.D.C.) |
On Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from Defendants, The United States District Court, District of Columbia, determined that “master schedules” and “performance reports” were not documents pertaining to the chaining of elephants, and/or describing practices and procedures for maintaining elephants on the train, and Plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to such documents. The Court could not determine whether certain audio tapes demanded by Plaintiffs pertained to the medical condition or health status of any Asian elephants in Defendants’ custody during a specified time-frame, or pertained to the investigation of Defendants’ operation conducted by the Department of Agriculture, without being given the opportunity to listen to and review the audio tapes. Plaintiffs’ mere speculation that Defendants hired an outside consulting firm to follow and/or counteract a previous employee’s efforts did not entitle Plaintiffs to any further judicial action. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Martinelli | 240 F. Supp. 365 (N.D. Cal. 1965) |
Court held the 1962 version of the BGEPA mandates a jury trial where defendant requests one, despite the fact it constitutes a "petty offense." For further discussion of criminal prosecutions under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |
| AL - Fur - § 13A-11-241. Cruelty in first and second degrees (dog/cat fur provision) | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-241 | AL ST § 13A-11-241 | In Alabama, a person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree if he or she skins a domestic dog or cat or offers for sale or exchange or offers to buy or exchange the fur, hide, or pelt of a domestic dog or cat. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree is a Class C felony. | Statute |
| Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe | 926 N.W.2d 441 (Neb.,2019) | 302 Neb. 968 (2019) | Brooke Wilkison (Brooke) got an American Staffordshire Terrier (pit bull) in 2015. In 2016, the city of Arapahoe passed an ordinance regarding dangerous dogs which contained a restriction on owning a Rottweiler or an American Staffordshire Terrier within city limits. The ordinance allowed for dogs licensed prior to January 1, 2017 to be grandfathered in as acceptable. Brooke did not have his dog licensed prior to the that date. Law enforcement told Brooke he could not keep the dog. Brooke filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent Arapahoe from implementing and enforcing the ordinance. The trial court found for Brooke and Arapahoe appealed. Arapahoe's first assignment of error is that the court erred by applying the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to the ordinance. The Court found that Arapahoe was not exempt from the strictures of the FHA. Arapahoe's second assignment of error was that the Court erred by enjoining enforcement of the ordinance against Brooke because Brooke's accommodation is not reasonable and necessary. The Court found that Brooke failed to meet his burden of proof that his requested accommodation is necessary for him to receive the same enjoyment from his home as a non-disabled person would receive. Brooke already owned another dog and the ordinance only covered certain dog breeds. Brooke's other claims for relief were remanded to the district court. In conclusion, the district court erred in entering a declaratory judgment and enjoining Arapahoe from enforcing the ordinance as applied to Brooke. | Case |
| 2014 International Animal Law Conference |
2014 II Global Animal Law Conference |
Policy | ||
| WV - Licenses - § 7-7-6d. Collection of head tax on dogs; duties of assessor and sheriff; | W. Va. Code, § 7-7-6d | WV ST § 7-7-6d | This West Virginia statute provides that it is the duty of the county assessor at the time of assessment of the personal property within such county, to assess and collect a head tax of one dollar on each male or spayed female dog and of two dollars on each unspayed female dog. In addition to the above, the assessor and his deputies shall have the further duty of collecting any such head tax on dogs as may be levied by the ordinances of each and every municipality within the county. The tax also serves the function of providing a registration for the dog. Any person who refuses to pay the tax after a specified period may have his or her dog seized, which may then be sold or eventually destroyed. | Statute |