Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Facility dog - § 18.2-67.9:1. Use of a certified facility dog for testimony in a criminal proceeding | VA Code Ann. § 18.2-67.9:1 | VA ST § 18.2-313.1 | This Virginia law, enacted in 2018, allows either party in a criminal proceeding to apply for an order from the court allowing a certified facility dog to be present with a witness testifying before the court through in-person testimony or testimony televised by two-way closed-circuit television. A court may allow if it several factors are found by a preponderance of the evidence. In this section, a “certified facility dog” means a dog that (i) has completed training and been certified by a program accredited by Assistance Dogs International or by another assistance dog organization that is a member of an organization whose main purpose is to improve training, placement, and utilization of assistance dogs and (ii) is accompanied by a duly trained handler. | Statute | |
| UT - Animal Disease Control - R58. Animal Industry. | U.A.C. R58-1 | UT ADC R58-1 | These are the regulations for Utah's Control of Animal Disease Act. The regulation states, "It is the intent of these rules to eliminate or reduce the spread of diseases among animals by providing standards to be met in the movement of animals within the State of Utah (INTRASTATE) and the importation of animals into the state (INTERSTATE)." Included in the rule are all import requirements for all major livestock species as well as dogs, cats, and ferrets. The rule also covers exotic animals, zoological animals, and wildlife (section 18). | Administrative | |
| WA - Trespass - CHAPTER 16.04. TRESPASS OF ANIMALS-GENERAL | West's RCWA 16.04.005 - 100 | WA ST 16.04.005 - 100 | These Washington statutes pertain to trespassing livestock animals. They provide for liability of owners for damage caused by such animals.There are also notification requirements to owners of trespassing animals. | Statute | |
| VT - South Burlington - Backyard Chicken Ordinance | South Burlington, Vermont Code of Ordinances, South Burlington Backyard Chicken Ordinance, §§ 100 - 115. |
The purpose of this South Burlington, Vermont ordinance is to provide standards for keeping no more than 6 noncommercial, domesticated female chickens in a lot and to ensure that the domesticated chickens do not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood properties. To do so, the city of South Burlington requires a person to obtain an annual permit and to demonstrate compliance with the criteria and standards listed in this ordinance. A violation of this ordinance will result in a $25 fine and may result in a permit revocation; a violation of this ordinance also provides grounds for removing chickens and chicken-related structures from a lot. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Ambros-Marcial v. U.S. | 377 F.Supp.2d 767 (D. Arizona 2005) |
Eleven illegal aliens tragically died in Arizona while attempting to cross the Sonoran Desert in May 2001. Plaintiffs, the aliens' surviving relatives, filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claiming that the manager of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge where decedents were found, caused their deaths by refusing to allow an immigrant rights group to erect water drums on the refuge in April 2001. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction because the decision was a “discretionary function” under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), and (2) Plaintiffs failed to state a claim because Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiffs. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The District Court held that defendant's concerns about the safety of aliens (who might be encouraged to cross the area because of the presence of water drums), the safety of refuge visitors (who have been victimized by a small percentage of illegal crossers), and environmental harm (arising from habitat disruption and littering of debris) gave Defendant the discretion to decline to authorize the erection of water drums on Cabeza Prieta, and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. In addition, Defendant owed no duty to affirmatively assist trespassers illegally crossing Cabeza Prieta in avoiding the obvious dangers of a hostile desert. Therefore, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. |
Case | ||
| Recchia v. City of Los Angeles Dep't of Animal Servs. | 889 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2018) | 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3984, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3901 | Petitioner Recchia sued the City of Los Angeles and animal control officers for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and claims for state law tort violations. The claims arise from the 2011 warrantless seizure of Recchia's 20 birds (18 pigeons, one crow, and one seagull) kept in boxes and cages on the sidewalk where he lived (Recchia was homeless at the time). Animal control officers investigated Recchia after a complaint that a homeless man had birds at his campsite. Officers found cramped and dirty cages with several birds in "dire physical condition," although there is evidence the birds were in that condition before Recchia possessed them. After officers impounded the birds, a city veterinarian decided that all the pigeons needed to be euthanized due to concerns of pathogen transmission. Recchia discovered that the birds had been euthanized at his post-seizure hearing that was four days after impounded of the animals. At that hearing, the magistrate found the seizure was justified under the operative anti-neglect law (California Penal Code § 597.1(a)(1)). This § 1983 and state claim action followed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, this court first examined whether the seizure of the healthy-looking birds was justified. The court held that hold that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether the healthy-looking birds posed any meaningful risk to other birds or humans at the time they were seized (it affirmed the dismissal as to the seizure of the birds that outwardly appeared sick/diseased). With regard to seizure of the birds without a pre-seizure hearing, the court applied the Matthews test to determine whether Recchia's rights were violated. Looking at the statute under which the birds were seized (Section 597.1), the court found that the law does afford adequate due process for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. As to other claims, the court granted Recchia permission to amend his complaint to challenge the city policy of not requiring a blood test before euthanizing the birds. The court also agreed with the lower court that the officers had discretionary immunity to state tort law claims of in seizing the animals. The district court's summary judgment was affirmed on Fourteenth Amendment and state tort claims against the officers, but vacated summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims against the animal control officers and constitutional claims against the city. | Case | |
| Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) |
Brief Summary of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) |
Topical Introduction | |||
| TX - Cruelty - Chapter 821. Treatment and Disposition of Animals. | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 821.001 - 026; § 821.051 - 057; § 821.076 - 081; § 821.101 - 104 | TX HEALTH & S §§ 821.001 - 026; § 821.051 - 057; § 821.076 - 081; § 821.101 - 104 | This Texas section addresses the treatment of animals and disposition of cruelly treated animals. | Statute |
