Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berres v. Anderson | 561 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) | This is an action for veterinary malpractice brought by the purchasers of cattle that tested positive for Johne's disease. The veterinarian diagnosed the disease in the seller's herd and treated the buyer's herd for the disease. The trial court granted summary judgment for the veterinarian on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired for the malpractice claim. On appeal, the court reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment, as it determined that the record indicated a genuine issue for trial as to the causation of the spread of the disease among the herd of cattle and whether adequate hygiene would have reduced the spread of the disease. | Case | ||
| People v Beam | 624 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. 2000) | 244 Mich. App. 103 (2000) |
Defendant argues on appeal that his conviction under MCL 750.49, which punishes the owner of a dog trained or used for fighting that causes the death of a person, must be reversed because the statute is unconstitutionally vague; specifically, that the terms "trained or used for fighting," "without provocation," and "owner" are vague. The court disagreed and held that the statute is sufficiently clear and gives the defendant fair notice of the offense. |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds | 591 F. Supp. 3d 397 (S.D. Iowa 2022), rev'd and remanded, 89 F.4th 1065 (8th Cir. 2024) | 2022 WL 777231 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 14, 2022) | Plaintiffs, five non-profit organizations dedicated to animal protection, food safety, and other advocacy issues, filed suit challenging Iowa Code § 717.3B, which they contend infringes on their constitutional rights. Specifically, these organizations contend that Iowa's new "ag-gag" law criminalizes their actions in gathering information through undercover investigations at animal production facilities. These organizations must misrepresent or conceal their identities to gather gather evidence of animal abuse and other alleged illegal conduct in day-to-day activities at facilities where they suspect wrongdoing occurs. Iowa Code § 717A.3B is the second in a series of laws passed by the Iowa legislature aimed at criminalizing undercover investigations such as the ones conducted by Plaintiffs. The previous law was challenged by these same plaintiffs and a permanent injunction was passed by the United States District Court. The defendants challenged the injunction in the Eighth Circuit, but before that was decided, the Iowa legislature passed the new section (§ 717A.3B). Here, both parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs contend that the new law violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it discriminates based on content and viewpoint and cannot survive strict scrutiny. Defendants argue that the law does not regulate protected speech under the First Amendment or, if it does regulate protected speech, it is content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral and passes intermediate scrutiny. The court first noted that the issue with § 717A.3B, and other laws aimed at prohibiting trespassers at agricultural facilities, is the law seeks to single out specific individuals for punishment based on their viewpoint regarding such facilities. This law operates in a viewpoint discriminatory fashion because it prohibits the deceptive trespasser who gains access or obtain employment at an agricultural facility with the intent to cause “economic harm ... to the agricultural production facility's ... business interest" as opposed to trespassers with an intent to benefit the facility. Thus, Section 717A.3B does not focus solely on the right to exclude, the legally cognizable harm of trespass, but only on the right to exclude those with particular viewpoints. While the court noted that a state legislature may determine whether specific facilities—such as agricultural facilities, nuclear power plants, military bases, or other sensitive buildings—are entitled to special legal protections, the First Amendment does not allow those protections to be based on a violator's viewpoint. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and Defendant's was denied. | Case | |
| U.S. v. Doyle | 786 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1986) |
Doyle is a physician who lives in Texas and runs a bird rehabilitation center where he breeds captive falcons, hoping to reintroduce them. Here, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for violation of the Lacey Act making it unlawful for any person to possess and transport in interstate commerce any wildlife taken or transported in violation of any state law (Montana). Although defendant obtained proper state permits to possess and transfer described falcons, defendant was aware that the falcons' origins had been misrepresented; therefore, defendant has sufficient knowledge under the statute. |
Case | ||
| State Dog Laws | This map gives links to the dog laws of every state. Those files contain what we call the consolidated dog laws. Included topics in these dog laws are dangerous dog/dog bite laws, fish and game laws related to dogs, animal control laws affecting dogs, and dog breeding/sale laws. Some states even have unique laws related to dogs such as designation of state dogs and laws related to dining in outdoor restaurants with pet dogs. To see the District of Columbia (D.C.) laws, click here. | State map | |||
| Map of State Laws Allowing Domestic Violence Orders to Include Pets |
This map shows states that have enacted legislation allowing individuals to include pets in domestic violence protection orders. Typically, these laws allow a petitioner to take possession of companion animals in the home and/or prevent the respondent from harming or removing companion animals. To date (2024), 40 states have such laws as well as D.C. and Puerto Rico. Also see Domestic Violence and Pets: List of States that Include Pets in Protection Orders. |
State map | |||
| MI - Fish & Wildlife Law Enforcement - Part 16. Enforcement of Laws for Protection of Wild Birds, Wild Animals, and Fish | M.C.L.A. 324.1501 - 1616 | MI ST 324.1501 - 1616 | These sections lay out the powers, including the power to serve criminal process, and jurisdiction of conservation officers, peace officers, and volunteer conservation officers. | Statute | |
| FL - Wildlife - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. | West's F. S. A. § 379.231 - 504 | FL ST § 379.231 - 504 | These Florida laws concern the keeping and taking of captive wildlife. Places where wildlife is held in captivity are subject to inspection by the officers of the state commission at any time. The commission shall promulgate rules defining Class I, Class II, and Class III types of wildlife. A companion statutory& section provides that, in order to assure humane treatment of captive wildlife, no person, firm, corporation or association shall be in possession of captive wildlife for public display unless a permit has been obtained. The cost of the permit depends on whether the species fall into Class I, II, or III). | Statute | |
| SEIDNER v. DILL | 206 N.E.2d 636 (Ind.App. 1965) | 137 Ind.App. 177 (Ind.App. 1965) |
Charles Dill, appellee, brought this action in the Municipal Court of Marion County, Indiana, therein alleging that the defendant-appellant, Harold Seidner, maliciously and intentionally shot and killed plaintiff's dog. The case essentially involved a companion animal that was shot and killed by the defendant neighbor who alleged that the dog was after his livestock. A statute in Indiana provided that a person was authorized to kill a dog “known” for “roaming” that harmed or threatened to harm the livestock. A verdict of six hundred dollars for the wrongful killing of the dog was affirmed. This case, however, was subsequently overruled by Puckett v. Miller , 178 Ind. App. 174 (Ind. App. Ct. 1978). |
Case | |
| US - Eagles - Advance Notice of a Proposal To Reclassify or Delist the Bald Eagle | 1990 WL 352377 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 90-2765 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reviewing the status of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in preparation of a proposal to either reclassify or delist the species. Since 1978 when the species was listed throughout its range in the conterminous States, the bald eagle has increased in several important population parameters including the number of nesting pairs and production of young. The Service has approved five regional recovery plans for the bald eagle that collectively encompass the entire conterminous 48 States. The current population data indicate that the bald eagle has met the goals for reclassification from endangered to threatened in four of these five recovery plans. The Service is currently reviewing past and present bald eagle population survey data and other information to ascertain what listing action may be appropriate for the species. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this notice and is requesting information on environmental and other impacts that would result from a proposal to either reclassify, downlist, or delist all or specific populations of the bald eagle. |
Administrative |