Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Browning v. State | 2007 WL 1805918 (Ind.App.) | 868 N.E.2d 1216 (Table) |
The Brownings were each charged with 32 counts of animal cruelty and convicted of five counts for their failure to provide adequate nutrition and veterinary care to their horses and cattle. As a result, Cass County seized and boarded several of their animals at a significant cost to the county. Although only five of those horses and cattle were ultimately deemed to be the subject of the defendants' cruelty, the appellate court affirmed the order requiring the Brownings to reimburse the county for boarding and caring for the horses and cattle during the proceedings totaling approximately $14,000 in fines and costs. |
Case |
| ND - Hunting - NDCC, 20.1-01-11 Hunting and harassing game from aircraft, motor vehicle, or snowmobile prohibited | NDCC 20.1-01-11 | ND ST 20.1-01-11 | This North Dakota statute states that no person operating or controlling the operation of any aircraft or motor vehicle in the state may intentionally kill, chase, or harass any wild animal or wild bird, protected or unprotected, unless exceptions under the statute apply. Also no person, while operating a snowmobile in the state, may intentionally kill, chase, flush, or harass any wild animal or wild bird, protected or unprotected. | Statute |
| Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana | 98 S.Ct. 1852(1978) | 436 U.S. 371 (1978) |
Appellants brought this action for declaratory and other relief claiming that the Montana statutory elk-hunting license scheme, which imposes substantially higher (at least 7 1/2 times) license fees on nonresidents of the State than on residents, and which requires nonresidents (but not residents) to purchase a "combination" license in order to be able to obtain a single elk, denies nonresidents their constitutional rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, and by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that the Privileges and Immunity Clause is not implicated, as access to recreational hunting is not fundamental and Montana has provided equal access for both residents and non-residents. Further, the statutory scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the state has demonstrated a rational relationship between the increased fee to non-residents (i.e., protection of a finite resource (elk) where there has been a substantial increase in non-resident hunters). |
Case |
| FL - Facility dog - § 92.55. Judicial or other proceedings involving victim or witness under the age of 18 | West's F.S.A. § 92.55 | Fla. Stat. Ann. § 92.55 | This statute allows any party at a judicial proceeding to protect a victim or witness under the age of 18 from severe emotional or mental harm due to the presence of the defendant. With respect to facility dogs, the law states that the court may set any other conditions it finds just and appropriate, including the use of a service or therapy animal that has been evaluated and registered according to national standards, in any proceeding involving a sexual offense. When deciding whether to permit a child victim or witness or sexual offense victim or witness to testify with the assistance of a registered service or therapy animal, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the age of the child victim or witness; (2) the age of the sexual offense victim or witness at the time the sexual offense occurred; (3) the interests of the child victim or witness or sexual offense victim or witness; (4) the rights of the parties to the litigation; and (5) any other relevant factor that would facilitate the testimony by the child victim or witness or sexual offense victim or witness. | Statute |
| ME - Disaster - Chapter 307. State of Maine Animal Response Team. | 7 M.R.S.A. § 1901 - 1902 | ME ST T. 7 § 1901 - 1902 | The Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources is directed to develop a State of Maine Animal Response Team to support a network that protects human and animal health through preparation, response and recovery for animal emergencies. The Team is to facilitate a response to a natural or man-made disaster and minimize the economic and environmental impacts of animal emergencies. The Treasurer of State is mandated to establish the State of Maine Animal Response Team Fund to pay costs incurred by the Team. | Statute |
| Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt | 987 F.Supp. 1349 (D. Wyoming 1997) | 46 ERC 1516 (D. Wyoming 1997) |
The Wyoming Farm Bureau, amateur researchers, and environmental groups appealed an agency to introduce experimental population of gray wolves in a national park and central Idaho. After ruling on the various standing issues, the court held that the ESA section allowing experimental population to be maintained only when it is "wholly separate geographically" from nonexperimental populations includes overlap even with individual members of nonexperimental species. However, the defendants' treatment of all wolves found within boundaries of designated experimental population areas as nonessential experimental animals was contrary to law as provided in their own regulations. Therefore, the court ordered that Defendants' Final Rules establishing a nonessential experimental population of gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, central Idaho and southwestern Montana was unlawful. Further, that by virtue of the plan being set aside, defendants must remove reintroduced non-native wolves and their offspring from the Yellowstone and central Idaho experimental population areas. This decision was reversed in 199 F.3d 1224. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Lawson | 677 F.3d 629 (4th Cir., 2012) | 2012 WL 1372172 (4th Cir., 2012) | Defendants appealed their conviction of violating, and conspiring to violate, the animal fighting prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Court of Appeals granted a new trial, but held, in part, that the AWA is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and that the provision of different elements of the crime in jurisdictions permitting animal fighting does not violate equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment. | Case |
| Ohio v. George | 2014-Ohio-5781 (App. Ct, 2014) | Clayton George was convicted of raping two children of his girlfriend, age six and eight at the time of the crime. Among assignments of error on appeal was that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing Avery, a facility dog, to accompany the two children during their testimony without a showing of necessity. On appeal, the defense argued that (1) unlike the facility dogs in Tohom, Spence, and Dye, Avery was “recognizable on the record while he was in court,” (2) the prosecution failed to show necessity for having Avery at trial, and (3) the standards set in Tohom, Spence, and Dye should have applied to determine whether Avery was permitted at trial. The appellate court noted that the defense had not objected to the presence of the dog during the trial nor had he made these three points at trial, meaning that the appellate court did not need to consider them for the first time on appeal under Ohio appellate law. The assignments of error were all overruled and the judgement of the trial court was affirmed. | Case |