Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilkins v. Daniels | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 6644465 (S.D.Ohio, 2012) |
Various owners of exotic and wild animals filed a lawsuit in order to obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction against the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director, David Daniels. The owners of the exotic and wild animals argued the Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act, which the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director were trying to enforce, was unconstitutional. The district court denied the owners’ motion for obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction reasoning that the exceptions to the Act’s ban on owning wild and exotic animals does not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, that the legislature had a legitimate purpose so as to not violate procedural due process with regards to micro-chipping wild and exotic animals, and that the Act did not constitute an unconstitutional takings. Significantly, the court recognized that owners of wild and exotic animals have a limited or qualified property interest in said animals. |
Case | ||
| Cramer v. Harris | 591 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2015) | Plaintiff William Cramer filed this lawsuit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 2, which requires California egg farmers to house egg laying hens in less restrictive enclosures. Plaintiff argued that, because Proposition 2 did not specify a minimum cage size for egg laying hens, a reasonable person could not discern whether the enclosures being used were compliant with Proposition 2 and that the law is void for vagueness as a result. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the court reasoned that Proposition 2 did not need to specify a minimum amount of space per bird, and that the space requirements mandating that each hen be able to extend its limbs fully and turn around freely can be discerned using objective criteria. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the lawsuit. | Case | ||
| MO - Domestic violence - 455.045. Temporary relief available--ex parte orders | V. A. M. S. 455.010, 455.045 | MO ST 455.010, 455.045 | Missouri amended its laws on domestic violence protection orders in 2021 to include the protection of pets. Any ex parte order of protection shall be to protect the petitioner from domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault and may include "[a] temporary order of possession of pets where appropriate." “Pet” is defined as a living creature maintained by a household member for companionship and not for commercial purposes. | Statute | |
| What Can Animal Law Learn from Environmental Law? |
|
Policy | |||
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.6. Exotic or native wild cat species; alteration of toes, claws or paws | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.6 | CA PENAL § 597.6 | This California law provides that no person may perform, or otherwise procure or arrange for the performance of, surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that is a member of an exotic or native wild cat species, and shall not otherwise alter such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent the normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws. Violation results in a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of up to $10,000. | Statute | |
| AU - Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (NSW) | Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 |
An Act to provide for the protection of rural lands; to provide for the establishment of the State Policy Council of Livestock Health and Pest Authorities and the constitution of livestock health and pest authorities and the State Management Council of Livestock Health and Pest Authorities and for the functions of those bodies; to regulate travelling stock reserves, stock watering places and the transportation of stock by vehicle; to provide for the control of certain pests; and for other purposes. |
Statute | ||
| Haviland v. Butz | 543 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976) | 543 F.2d 169, 36 A.L.R. Fed. 615, 177 U.S.App.D.C. 22 |
This case addresses whether the Secretary of Agriculture intended to include “animal acts” under the AWA. Animal acts are any performance of animals where such animals are trained to perform some behavior or action or are part of a show, performance, or exhibition. Defendant presented an animal act with dogs and ponies to paying audiences and occasionally appeared on commercial television. Defendant asserted that he did not “exhibit” animals simply by showing dogs and ponies and argued that the Secretary unconstitutionally added “animal acts” to the AWA. The court held that the inclusion of “animal acts” was authorized as“[t]he words ‘includes’ and ‘such as’ [in the AWA] point convincingly to the conclusion that the listing of types of exhibitions in the statutory text was intended to be but partial and illustrative.” |
Case | |
| Humane Society v. Merriam | 2007 WL 333309 (D.Minn.) |
Minnesota allowed trapping and snaring activities. Plaintiffs sued the state, arguing that this policy was causing the death of some endangered Canada lynx, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs and defendants had the case dismissed after they agreed that Minnesota would seek a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, and that conservation measures would be taken for the protection of the lynx. |
Case | ||
| IN - Exotic animals, contact - Chapter 26.5. Specified Animals | I.C. 14-22-26.5-1 - 9 | IN ST 14-22-26.5-1 - 9 | This set of Indiana laws was enacted in 2022. A person that owns or possesses a specified animal may not allow a member of the public to (1) come into direct contact with; or (2) enter into a proximity that allows for or permits direct contact with the specified animal, regardless of the age of the specified animal. Essentially, public contact with certain animals that include lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, and mountain lions (or their hybrids) is prohibited. | Statute | |
| US - Livestock - Petition To Amend the Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation Regulations to Include Fitness for Transport Requirements | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute and World Society for the Protection of Animals | This petition is submitted on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute (“AWI”) and the United States office of the World Society for the Protection of Animals (“WSPA”) and requests that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), initiate rulemaking to amend the “exportation of animals” regulations by adopting the animal welfare standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (“OIE”) for the transport of animals. Read the regulations this petition challenges. | Administrative |
