Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDonald v. State | 64 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. App. 2001) |
The act of finding a sick puppy and intentionally abandoning it in a remote area, without food or water or anyone else around to accept responsibility for the animal, was unreasonable and sufficient to support a conviction for animal cruelty. |
Case | ||
| Garcia v. Village of Tijeras | 767 P.2d 355 (1988) | 108 N.M. 116, 57 USLW 2507 (1988) |
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance of the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico banning the ownership or possession of a breed of dog “known as American Pit Bull Terrier.” The District Court of Bernalillo County upheld the ordinance and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs had notice that the ordinance proscribes the conduct in which they were engaged; thus, it was not void for vagueness. With regard to the argument that the ordinance violated substantive due process, the court found that ordinance was rationally related to legitimate village purpose of protecting the health and safety of the community. Finally, the court found that the ordinance did not violate procedural due process where the ordinance provides that a hearing is held after impoundment to determine whether the dog is a pit bull. |
Case | |
| Colombia - Marine mammals - LEY 557, 2000, International Program of Dolphin Conservation | LEY 557, 2000 | Through Ley 557, Congress approves and adopts the international Dolphin Conservation Program signed in Washington D.C. This program covers all the area in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and was ratified by Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, United States, and Venezuela. The main goal of this program is to reduce dolphin mortality in the Eastern Pacific due to the tuna purse-seine fishery. | Statute | ||
| MS - Licenses - Chapter 5. Health, Safety and Public Welfare. In General | Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-50 | MS ST § 19-5-50 | This Mississippi statute provides that the governing authorities of any county bordering on the Gulf of Mexico and having within its boundaries two cities having in excess of forty thousand (40,000) population each and any county with a population in excess of two hundred thousand (200,000) shall have the power to prevent or regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds, and to cause such as may be running at large to be impounded and sold to discharge the costs. These governing bodies are also given the authority to regulate and tax dogs generally. | Statute | |
| AZ - Exotic Wildlife - Article 4. Live Wildlife | A.A.C. R12-4-401 to 430 | AZ ADC R12-4-401 to 430 | These Arizona regulations define “captive live wildlife” as live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild. The regulations provides that no individual shall import or export any live wildlife into or out of the state. An individual may take wildlife from the wild alive under a valid Arizona hunting or fishing license only if there is a Commission Order that prescribes a live bag and possession limit for that wildlife and the individual possesses the appropriate license. However, no person may possess restricted live wildlife without a valid permit. The statute also provides a comprehensive list of all mammals that are considered restricted live wildlife. An individual who holds a special license listed in R12-4-409(A) shall keep all wildlife in a facility according to the captivity standards prescribed under R12-4-428 or as otherwise required under this Article. A special license holder subject to the provisions of this Section shall comply with the minimum standards for humane treatment prescribed by this Section. | Administrative | |
| ID - Wildlife - Chapter 7. Captive Wildlife | I.C. § 36-701 to 716 | ID ST § 36-701 to 716 | This section comprises Idaho's captive wildlife provisions. Under the law, no person shall engage in any propagation or hold in captivity any species of big game animal found wild in this state, unless the person has been issued a license or permit by the director. All other species of mammals, birds or reptiles that are found in the wild in this state and are not species of special concern or threatened and endangered species, may be held in captivity without permit so long as the possessor retains proof that such wildlife was lawfully obtained. The laws concerning commercial wildlife farms are also included in this section. Additionally, there is also a section on the transition of wolves from federal to state management (36-715). | Statute | |
| State v. Goodall | 175 P. 857 (Or. 1918) | 90 Or. 485 (Or. 1918) |
This case involved an appeal from this conviction. The trial court found that the defendant rode the animal while it had a deep ulcerated cut on its back, and supplied it with insufficient food. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. |
Case | |
| People v. Proehl (unpublished) | Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2011 WL 2021940 (Mich.App.) |
Defendant was convicted of failing to provide adequate care to 16 horses. On appeal, Defendant first argued that, to him, nothing appeared to be wrong with his horses and, consequently, no liability can attach. The court disagreed, explaining: "Defendant's personal belief that his horses were in good health . . . was therefore based on fallacy, and has no effect on his liability under the statute." Defendant also maintained that he is an animal hoarder, which is a "psychological condition" that mitigates his intent. Rejecting this argument, the court noted that Defendant’s "hoarding" contention is based upon a non-adopted bill which, in any event, fails to indicate whether animal hoarding may serve as a proper defense. |
Case | ||
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4002.8. Qualifications for license | 9 NY ADC 4002.8 | 9 NYCRR 4002.8 | If the New York State Racing and Wagering Board finds that an applicant meets the criteria for financial responsibility, experience, character and fitness, then it will issue an occupational license to that person. | Administrative | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert | Slip Copy 2017 WL 2912423 (D. Utah July 7, 2017) | This case deals with the constitutionality of Utah's "ag gag" law, enacted in 2012. The law criminalizes lying to obtain access to an agricultural operation and the subsequent recording or filming once inside. According to statements made enactment, it is directed at undercover operations that investigate farm animal abuse. Plaintiffs assert that the law violates their First Amendment rights. On review of motions, the court first looked at whether the First Amendment applies to this type of "lying." Because a recent U.S. Supreme Court case makes lying that causes "cognizable legal harm" outside the protection of the First Amendment, the court examined the type of lying at issue in the Utah law. Ultimately, the court found that lying to gain access to these agricultural facilities does not in itself cause a legally cognizable harm. Thus, "absent an additional showing of harm, under either interpretation, at least some of the lies criminalized by the Act retain First Amendment protection." With regard to First Amendment protections for the act of recording once at an agricultural operation and whether a strict scrutiny standard applies, the court looked to other circuits that found the act of making speech (i.e., recording/filming) is protected. The State countered with the fact that such recording occurs on private property, but the court found the government cannot place criminal restrictions on speech simply because it occurs on private property. The court noted that the property owner can indeed remove the person from the property and sue for any damages resulting from the trespass, which is different than prosecution by the state to curtail speech. Finally, after finding that the act impinges protected speech, the court then analyzed whether it withstood a strict scrutiny review. The State proffered government interests that include concerns over worker protection and disease outbreak. However, the court noted nothing in the legislative history on these claims or any actual incidents that supported these asserted government interests. The court found the Act did not survive strict scrutiny as it was not narrowly tailored and instead was directed at the content of the speech (the act of recording a facility). The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and the State's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied. | Case |