Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife | 504 U.S. 555 (1992) |
Respondents filed suit challenging the new regulation under the ESA that limited the jurisdiction to the U.S. and the high seas. While the case, was remanded the central issue to this case was whether respondents had standing to challenge the ruling. |
Case | ||
| Dogs in Outdoor Dining | As of 2023, 23 states have laws or administrative regulations that allow patrons to bring pet dogs to outdoor dining spaces in restaurants. Some laws require that the local unit of government first enact an ordinance allowing the activity. | State map | |||
| OK - Restaurant, animals - 310:257-11-54. Prohibiting animals | OK ADC 310:257-11-54 | OAC 310:257-11-54 | This Oklahoma regulation relates to animals in food establishments. Subsection (d) states that dogs and cats may be allowed in outdoor dining areas, provided the dog or cat is controlled by the owner or handler of the animal and nine conditions are met. Among the conditions include a requirement for a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area, a prohibition on direct contact with the animals by employees, a process to keep the area clean from animal excrement, and a requirement that food and water receptacles for the animals be single-use, disposable containers. | Administrative | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 4 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. IV (2008)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| Willoughby v. Board of Veterinary Examiners | 483 P.2d 498 (N.M. 1971) | 82 N.M. 443 (1971) |
Donald Wayne Willoughby, D.V.M., successfully appealed the suspension of his license for 180 days at the district court level. In an appeal by the Board of Veterinary Examiners, the Supreme Court found the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence based on an examination of the entire record. The Court stated that the trial judge substituted his own judgment in reversing the decision of the Board, rather than basing his reversal upon any of the grounds set forth in the statute. While the Court affirmed the order of revocation, it held that there no language within the Uniform Licensing Act that gives the Board the power to place the appellee on probation after the period for which his license has been suspended. |
Case | |
| MN - Health - 1721.0500. IMPORTATION OF DOGS, CATS, OR FERRETS. | MN ADC 1721.0500 | Minn. R. 1721.0500 | This Minnesota regulation states that, unless otherwise provided, a dog, cat, or ferret imported into the state must be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection. A dog, cat, or ferret three months of age or older imported into the state must be currently vaccinated for rabies unless they meet all conditions of subpart 1, item D, or are exempted by the board based on the written recommendations of a licensed veterinarian who has examined the animal and who has determined that vaccination is contraindicated due to a medical condition. | Administrative | |
| ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 414971 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019) | In 1991, the plaintiff, Zoological Society of Cincinnati, transferred a western lowland Gorilla named Ndume who had been living at the Zoo to The Gorilla Foundation (TGF) in Northern California. Ndume was sent to TGF in hopes that he and another gorilla there, named Koko, would mate and produce offspring. That never happened. In 2015, the Zoo and TGF entered into a new written agreement which expressly superseded any prior agreements. The agreement provided that upon the death of Koko, Ndume was to be placed at an institution that is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). TGF is not an AZA accredited institution. KoKo died and the Zoo now wants to transfer Ndume back to the zoo. TGF has not made arrangements for a transfer to be carried out. The Zoo brought this suit seeking specific enforcement of the 2015 agreement and contends that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. TGF argued that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because the transfer would harm Ndume. TGF identified a number of potential risks, particularly, that Ndume has a Balantidium Coli infection. TGF contended that stress could trigger an outbreak which could be fatal. The court was unpersuaded and stated that TGF signed the 2015 agreement less than 3 years before the present dispute arose and that all of the circumstances that TGF contends makes compliance with the agreement risky existed when the agreement was negotiated. TGF also contended that the agreement is impracticable due to unreasonable (non-monetary) costs. However, the Court again stated that TGF knew these facts and circumstances when it entered into the agreement. The Court granted the Zoo's motion for summary judgment and denied TGF's request for a continuance to permit it to take discovery. The parties were ordered to confer and attempt to reach a consensus on as many aspects of the protocol for transporting Ndume to the Zoo as possible. If within 30 days of the date of the order the parties cannot reach a consensus, they will have to file a joint statement setting out any issues on which they have reached a stalemate. | Case | ||
| WA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Chapter 16.52) | West's RCWA 16.52.010 - 360 | WA ST 16.52.010 - 360 | This section of statutes contains Washington's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the section, "animal" means any nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian. Sections 16.52.205 and 16.52.207 are the primary anti-cruelty provisions that categorize cruelty in either the first or second degree. A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree (a class C felony) when he or she intentionally inflicts substantial pain on, causes physical injury to, or kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal. A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree (a misdemeanor) if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal. An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence fails to provide the animal with necessary food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, ventilation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure, or if he or she abandons the animal. | Statute | |
| WI - Montello - Breed - § 117-17 Pit Bull Dogs. | MONTELLO, WI., CODE § 117-17 (1989) |
In Montello, Wisconsin, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, provided that dogs previously registered may be kept subject to certain requirement. These requirements are keeping the dog properly confined or on a leash and muzzle, posting a "Beware of Dog” sign, keeping $50,000 liability insurance, and taking photographs for identification purposes. Sale or transfer of ownership of pit bulls is prohibited. Failure to comply may result in the seizure and impoundment of the dog, a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to 30 days. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Daniele v Weissenberger | 2002 WL 31813949,136 A Crim R 390 | 2002 WASCA 346 |
Court uphold conviction for failure to provide food and water for horses. Even thought not the owner, he was the responsible party. Sentence of $3,000 fine and suspended 3 month was not excessive. |
Case |