Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DE - Law-Enforcement Animal - § 1250. Offenses against law-enforcement animals | 11 Del.C. § 1250 | DE ST TI 11 § 1250 | This Delaware statute penalizes those who harass a law-enforcement animal. The statute states what constitutes assault in the first and second degree against a law-enforcement animal. | Statute | |
| Perez v. County of Monterey | --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---- 2019 WL 621483 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019) | Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1493 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019) | In this California case, the plaintiffs sued to challenge the validity of the County of Monterey rooster-keeping ordinance, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The ordinance limits residents to no more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster keeping permit and also describes care and keeping requirements. The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the constitution and entered judgment for the City. Plaintiffs here appeal that decision, arguing that the ordinance: (1) takes property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) infringes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce; (3) violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) is a prohibited bill of attainder; and (5) violates the rights to privacy and to possess property guaranteed by the California Constitution. With respect to the Fifth Amendment taking challenge, the court found that the regulatory takings argument failed because there is no evidence that the ordinance affected plaintiffs or that they even applied for or were eligible for a permit. As to the interstate commerce challenge, plaintiffs provided no evidence that the ordinance would cause excess roosters to be divested from owners and sold in commerce to support this claim. As to Equal Protection, the plaintiffs correctly assert that the ordinance treats people differently based on age (i.e., students engaged in 4-H or FFA activities are exempted from the four-rooster limitation). However, the court found that the county stated a legitimate objective of public health and safety and this differential treatment of a non-suspect class advances that interest. Finally, the court found the ordinance was not a bill of attainder since it prospectively regulates roosters and also that it does not violate California's right to privacy and property possession. Indeed, the court found that plaintiff did not identify a specific privacy interest implicated by the ordinance. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| WA - Trade - 77.15.260. Unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty | West's RCWA 77.15.260 | WA ST 77.15.260 | This Washington statute pertains to unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, and wildlife. A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in the second degree if s/he traffics in such animals with a wholesale value of less than $250 and the animals are unclassified or classified as game, food fish, shellfish, game fish, or protected wildlife. Unlawful trafficking in the first degree occurs when the animals have a value of $250 or more or the animals are classified as endangered or deleterious exotic wildlife. | Statute | |
| ND - Exotic Pets - Category 3 Species. 48.1-09-06-01. Housing, handling, health, and importation | ND ADC 48.1-09-06-01 | NDAC 48.1-09-06-01 | This North Dakota regulation provides specific rules for Category 3 species of non-traditional livestock. These species include: wild suidae (hogs and pigs); large felids (cats) and hybrids; bears; wolves and wolf-hybrids; venomous reptiles; primates, and nondomestic sheep/goats and their hybrids. Among the provisions include regulations for housing and confinement, importation requirements, and vaccinations. | Administrative | |
| PA - Pet Sales - § 201-9.3. Dog purchaser protection | 73 P.S. § 201-9.3 | PA ST 73 P.S. § 201-9.3 | This Pennsylvania statute comprises the state's Dog Purchaser Protection law. The law mandates disclosure of a dog's health history by a seller (defined as pet shop operator or other individual who sells dogs to the public and who owns or operates a kennel or pet shop licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture or the United States Department of Agriculture). If, within ten days after the date of purchase, a dog purchased from a seller is determined, through physical examination, diagnostic tests or necropsy by a veterinarian, to be clinically ill or dies from any contagious or infectious illness or any parasitic illness which renders it unfit for purchase or results in its death, the purchaser may exercise one of the described statutory elections. | Statute | |
| CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff & Respondent, v. City of West Hollywood, Defendant & Appellant | This California action concerns the adoption of an ordinance in 2003 by the City of West Hollywood that prohibits the de-clawing of house cats. Amici Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF" ), the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (" A V AR" ), and the Paw Project submitted a brief to assist the Court in its determination of whether the ordinance at issue on this appeal legally prohibits non-therapeutic onychectomies (commonly known as " de-clawing") of domestic animals within the City of West Hollywood. The California Superior Court found that the Business and Professions Code section 460 preempts a municipal ordinance that attempts to regulate veterinarian procedures. The Amici contend that the CVMA examines only one section of the Code and disregards other sections that apply. Further, the amici find that the CVMA’s “. . . members have a pecuniary interest in performing the acts that the City has determined to be cruel.” On Friday, June 22, 2007, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 that a city can regulate the conduct of its professionals provided it does not prohibit procedures that state law expressly allows. | Pleading | |||
| Zageris v. Whitehall | 594 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1991) | 72 Ohio App.3d 178 |
The single-family residence property owner and owner of dogs kept on property filed suit for declaratory judgment, petition for habeas corpus, and civil rights claims against city based on city's enforcement of ordinance prohibiting number of dogs on property. He then appealed the ruling in favor for the city. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the local ordinance limiting number of dogs on single family property was a nuisance and not zoning measure and consequently a valid exercise of city's police power. |
Case | |
| United States of America v. James and Thomas Allemand | 34 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 1994) |
The jury convicted the Allemands of conspiring to export illegally taken wildlife and to file false records concerning wildlife intended for export. The court held that any error in the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that it could convict for conspriacy to make and submit false records concerning wildlife export only if conspirators intended to violate the law it was amended in 1988 was harmless where almost all the evidence adduced at trial related to acts from a time after the amendment was effective. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - Subpart D. Specifications/Standards for Nonhuman Primates | 9 C.F.R. § 3.75 to .92 | This portion of the AWA regulations contains the humane care provisions for non-human primates. Included are requirements for housing facilities, primary enclosures, provisions for psychological well-being, feeding, watering, sanitization, employee requirements, and transportation standards. | Administrative | ||
| DON'T FENCE ME IN--APPLICATION OF THE UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES OF PUBLIC LANDS ACT TO BENEFIT WILDLIFE | 5 Animal L. 1 (1999) | The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service manage millions of acres of public land across the United States. Most of this land serves more than one purpose-grazing, mining, recreation, timber, wildlife-and thus must remain available for these uses. Historically, the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) preserved access for ranchers and homesteaders. More recently, the UIA has also protected access for wildlife whose movements are impeded by fences or other illegal obstructions. This article argues that such protection should be extended to the Sonoran pronghorn antelope in the southwestern United States. | Article |