Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Fur - 167.390. Commerce in fur of domestic cats and dogs | O. R. S. § 167.390 | OR ST § 167.390 | In Oregon, a person may not take, buy, sell, barter or otherwise exchange for commerce in fur purposes the raw fur or products that include the fur of a domestic cat or dog if the fur is obtained through a process that kills or maims the cat or dog. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor when the offense is committed with a culpable mental state as defined in ORS 161.085. | Statute | |
| Dorman v. Satti | 678 F.Supp. 375 (D.Conn.,1988) | The federal district court here considered the constitutionality of Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act (Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 53a-183a) of 1985. The plaintiff was arrested under the Act after she approached hunters who were hunting waterfowl in public lands adjacent to her property and attempted to verbally dissuade them from hunting. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Act. In finding the Act unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court found that it criminalized constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, the Court found that the Act failed to define “interference” and did not adequately limit the reach of “acts in preparation” to hunt. | Case | ||
| MO - Lost Dog - Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act | V. A. M. S. 447.010 - 110 | MO ST 447.010 - 110 | This section comprises Missouri's Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. | Statute | |
| US - Great Apes, Sanctuary - Part 9. Standards of Care for Chimpanzees Held in the Federally Supported Sanctuary System | 42 C.F.R. § 9.1 to .13 | This set of regulations sets minimum standards of care for the chimpanzees that are maintained in the Federal Chimpanzee Sanctuary System, which was established by the CHIMP Act. | Administrative | ||
| TX- Dangerous Animals - G. Caging Requirements and Standards for Dangerous Wild Animals. | 25 TX ADC § 169.131, 132 | 25 TAC § 169.131, 132 | This regulation establishes caging requirements and minimum standards of care for "dangerous wild animals," including: gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons, lions, tigers, cheetahs, ocelots, cougars, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, lynxes, servals, caracals, hyenas, bears, coyotes, jackals, and all hybrids thereof. | Administrative | |
| SD - Vehicle - SDCL § 41-1-12. Euthanasia of animal injured in motor vehicle accident | SDCL § 41-1-12 - 13 | SD ST § 41-1-12 - 13 | Any person who has seriously injured a wildlife animal or who comes upon a wildlife animal that has been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident may euthanize the animal if that person has the means, skill, and will to euthanize humanely. | Statute | |
| City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas | 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990). |
City's animal control ordinance banning the keeping of pit bulls was not preempted by state Penal Code provisions governing the keeping of vicious dogs. |
Case | ||
| State v. Newcomb | 359 Or 756 (2016) | In this case, the Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed a case in which defendant accused the State of violating her constitutional rights by taking a blood sample of her dog without a warrant to do so. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant did not have a protected privacy interest in the dog’s blood and therefore the state did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant’s dog, Juno, was seized by the Humane Society after a worker made a visit to plaintiff’s home and had probable cause to believe that Juno was emaciated from not receiving food from plaintiff. After Juno was seized and taken into custody for care, the veterinarian took a blood sample from Juno to confirm that there was no other medical reason as to why Juno was emaciated. Defendant argued that this blood test was a violation of her constitutional rights because the veterinarian did not have a warrant to perform the test. The court dismissed this argument and held that once Juno was taken into custody, defendant had “lost her rights of dominion and control over Juno, at least on a temporary basis.” Finally, the court held that because Juno was lawfully seized and Juno’s blood was “not ‘information’ that defendant placed in Juno for safekeeping or to conceal from view,” defendant’s constitutional rights had not been violated. | Case | ||
| NM - Invasive Species - Chapter 17. Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation. | NMSA 1978, § 17-4-35 | NM ST § 17-4-35 | These New Mexico statutes pertain to controlling aquatic invasive species. If a conveyance or equipment has been in an infested water body, the owner must decontaminate it or have it inspected and certified prior to entering another water body in the state. Law enforcement officers must take action to prevent infested equipment from entering water bodies, and may impound equipment if the person transporting it refuses to submit to an inspection and the officer has reason to believe that an aquatic invasive species may be present. | Statute | |
| City of Sausalito v. O'Neill | 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) | 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) |
A City sought to prevent the National Park Service from implementing a development plan in a nearby recreational area claiming the Park service had violated various environmental statutes. The trial court held the City did not have standing to assert most of its claims and lost on the merits of the remaining claims. The Court of Appeals held the City did have standing to assert all of its claims, but lost on the merits of all its claims except those under the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. |
Case |