Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS | Title 6 - ANIMALS, Sections 6.04.010 to 6.20.160 |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Horen v. Commonwealth | 479 S.E. 2d 553 (Va. 1997) |
Native American medicine woman and her husband convicted of illegally possessing wild bird feathers in violation of Virginia statute. The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the statute violates RFRA because it does not provide a scheme to possess feathers for religious purposes, as it does for other purposes. Thus, the statute was not religiously neutral because it discriminated based on content and the state did not employ the least restrictive means in advancing its compelling interest. For further discussion on the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| CA - Emergency - § 1797.10. Emergency medical transport for police dog; pilot project; | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1797.10, § 1799.109 | Section 1799.109, first makes legislative findings on the importance of dogs and cats to Californians and that some first responder agencies have been providing stabilizing, life-saving emergency care to dogs and cats, which violates the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. This new law allows an emergency responder to provide basic first aid to dogs and cats to the extent that the provision of that care is not prohibited by the responder's employer. The responder is not subject to criminal prosecution under the prohibitions of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. Basic first aid includes things like administering oxygen, manually clearing an upper airway, controlling a hemorrhage with direct pressure, and bandaging to stop bleeding. This section does not impose a duty or obligation upon an emergency responder or any other person to transport or provide care to an injured pet or other domesticated animal during an emergency nor does it require emergency services through a 911 call for dogs or cats. | Statute | |
| Hauser v. Ventura County Board of Supervisors | 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 (Cal. Ct. App., 2018) | 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018), 2018 WL 94788718 (Cal. Ct. App., 2018) | The plaintiff in this case applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to keep up to five tigers on her property, but the county planning commission and board of supervisors denied her application. In her application, plaintiff indicates that the project would include three tiger enclosures, a 13,500-square-foot arena with a roof over 14 feet in height at its highest point, with the area surrounded by an eight-foot-high chain link fence encompassing over seven acres. The captive tigers would be used in the entertainment industry: movie sets, television commercials, and still photography. In denying the application, the Board found that the plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary for a CUP: the project is compatible with the planned uses in the general area, and the project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. The court noted that plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating her entitlement to the permit. In fact, the court noted that while plaintiff claims "an unblemished safety record," she submitted videos showing tigers "roaming freely in the backyard of her Beverly Hills home" and tigers posing with plaintiff and her sister on the beach. The court observed that, "[h]er well-intentioned desire to own [the tigers] does not trump her neighbors' right to safety and peace of mind." The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. | Case |
| RI - Farming - Chapter 1.1. Unlawful Confinement of a Covered Animal | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-1.1-1 to 1.1-6 | RI ST § 4-1.1-1 to 1.1-6 | This Rhode Island chapter of laws was enacted to to prohibit the confinement of calves raised for veal and sows during gestation, subject to exceptions. It becomes effective June 19, 2013. | Statute |
| MT - Exotic pets - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. | MCA 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | MT ST 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | This set of Montana laws covers both "roadside menagerie" (any place where one or more wild animals are kept in captivity for the evident purpose of exhibition or attracting trade, excluding an educational institution or a traveling theatrical exhibition or circus based outside of Montana) and "wild animal menagerie" (any place where one or more bears or large cats, including cougars, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, pumas, cheetahs, ocelots, and hybrids of those large cats are kept in captivity for use other than public exhibition). The latter definition seems to cover the keeping of those listed species as exotic pets. Under the section, it is unlawful for any person to operate a roadside menagerie or wild animal menagerie without a permit. The annual permit fee for five or less animals is $10. The annual permit fee for more than five animals is $25. | 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 | |
| Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | 2002 SCC 76 | [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45 |
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled “transgenic animals”. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of “invention” in s. 2 of the Patent Act . |
Case |
| Harvey v. Southern Pac. Co. | 80 P. 1061 (1905) | 46 Or. 505 (1905) |
This is a case involving a train hitting a cow. This case involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow. The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track. |
Case |