Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson v. Creighton | 483 US 635 (1987) |
Suit was brought against FBI agent seeking damages resulting from warrantless search of residents' home. |
Case | ||
| OR - Hunting, Internet - 635-065-0740. Hunting Prohibited | OR ADC 635-065-0740 | OAR 635-065-0740 | It is unlawful in Oregon to engage in computer-assisted hunting (Internet hunting) or provide or operate facilities for computer-assisted hunting in Oregon. As used in this act, “computer-assisted hunting” (Internet hunting) means the use of a computer or any other device, equipment, or software to remotely control the aiming and discharge of a firearm, bow, or any other weapon to hunt any game bird, wildlife, game mammal, or other mammal, and “facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting” means real property and improvements on the property associated with hunting, including hunting blinds, offices and rooms equipped to facilitate computer-assisted remote hunting. Nothing in subsection (8) of this section prohibits the use of computer-assisted hunting by employees or agents of county, state or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities. | Administrative | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 2 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. II (2006)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| In the Matter of Kerlin | 376 A.2d 939 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1977) |
Respondent Raymond Kerlin, D.V.M., appealed a decision of the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (Board), finding him guilty of "gross malpractice or gross neglect" in the practice of veterinary medicine after an employee at his office (his wife) stated that the office could not treat a deathly ill kitten after the owners requested payment by credit (apparently not accepted at the office). In this case, the court observed nothing in the findings of facts to support a conclusion that respondent was aware of the exchange which occurred between the kitten’s owner and Mrs. Kerlin in time for him to have prevented the situation or to have taken remedial steps. Nothing adduced at trial proved that Dr. Kerlin followed the policy of rejecting requests for emergency treatment on credit. Thus, the court concluded that the State failed to establish that respondent was guilty of a violation or of conduct warranting disciplinary action for "gross malpractice", and the decision of the Board was reversed. |
Case | ||
| Auster v. Norwalk | 943 A.2d 391 (Conn. 2008) | 2008 WL 726289 (Conn. 2008) , 286 Conn. 152 (2008) |
Plaintiff, while on church premises, was bitten by a church employee's dog. Plaintiff seeks damages from church under the state dog bite statute, which imposes strict liability for damages on the dog's keeper. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church, reasoning that a non-owner must be responsible for maintaining and controlling the dog at the time the damage is done in order to be held liable under the statute. |
Case | |
| ND - Rabies - 48.1-13-01-01. Importation requirements - Certificate of veterinary inspection | ND ADC 48.1-13-01-01 | N.D. Admin. Code § 48.1-13-01-01 | This North Dakota regulation states that any dog, cat, or ferret over three months of age imported into the state must have a certification of a current rabies vaccination. It also provides other requirements for dog, cat, and ferret importation into the state. | Administrative | |
| Ivory Education Institute v. Department of Fish and Wildlife | 28 Cal. App. 5th 975 (Ct. App. 2018), as modified (Nov. 5, 2018), review denied (Jan. 16, 2019) | 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 606 (Ct. App. 2018) | The Legislature passed Assembly Bill 96 which took effect July 1, 2016 as Fish & Game Code section 2022. The bill imposed new restrictions on the sale and importation of ivory and rhinoceros horn. The Ivory Education (the Institute) sued the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Department) in order to block implementation of the law. The institute alleged that the statute was unconstitutional on multiple grounds including vagueness, federal preemption, the takings clause, and the commerce clause. The trial court entered judgment for the Department and the intervenor defendants (the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Wildlife Conservation Society). The Institute appealed and abandoned all other issues raised and limited its challenge to the void-for-vagueness doctrine. "The Institute contend[ed] that section 2022 [was] unconstitutionally vague for two reasons: 1) while it allows for the sale or import of ivory insofar as it is allowed by federal law, differences in what federal law allows make it nearly impossible to tell what would qualify for the exemption provided by section 2022(c)(c); and 2) there are no guidelines by which to determine the permissible volume of ivory in either musical instruments or antiques." The Court of Appeals stated that a statute is not vague if its meaning can be determined by looking at other sources of information. Those who wish to comply with section 2022 have a duty to locate and examine statutes or whatever else necessary to determine the scope of the exemption provision. "Section 2022 has a single purpose—to prevent the sale or importation of ivory and rhinoceros horn. Both of those terms are defined. The Institute has 'not demonstrated that attempts to give substance and meaning' to the three disputed exceptions 'would be fruitless.'" As for the Institute's second contention, the Court of Appeals stated that because musical instruments and antiques are tangible objects that occupy a verifiable amount of three-dimensional space, the percentage of any such object that has ivory in it can be readily determined. The Court of Appeals held that the statute was not vague. The Court affirmed the holding of the trial court. | Case | |
| Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law Vol. 10 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal & Natural Resource Law Vol. X (2014)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| WA - Health - Chapter 16.36. Animal Health | West's RCWA 16.36.005 - 160 | WA ST 16.36.005 - 160 | These laws set forth the laws for importation and health requirements of certain imported animals. It also allows the director to establish inspection procedures for the transportation of animals. A section provides that it is unlawful for a person to bring an animal into Washington state without first securing a certificate of veterinary inspection, reviewed by the state veterinarian of the state of origin, verifying that the animal meets the Washington state animal health | Statute | |
| WI - Hewitt - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | HEWITT, WI., ORDINANCE NO. 18.01 § 5 |
In Hewitt, Wisconsin, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pitbull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered by the date the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept subject to certain conditions, such as keeping the dog properly confined, using a leash and muzzle, posting "Beware of Dog" signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance. |
Local Ordinance |