Results
Displaying 5991 - 6000 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| GA - Exotic Animals - 40-13-2-.16. Exotic and Pet Birds. | GA ADC 40-13-2-.16, 17 | Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 40-13-2-.16, 17 | This Georgia regulation provides that all exotic animals and all non-traditional livestock entering Georgia must be accompanied by an official Certificate of Veterinary Inspection identifying each animal with unique permanent individual identification. | Administrative | |
| Topical Introductions | Welcome to our Topical Introductions Page! Topical Introductions function as portals to more information on specific topics from "ag-gag" to zoos. Each topic introduction contains a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific issue with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from companion animal issues (like dog bite laws, lost pets, and custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. Are you looking for a specific topic? Go to our Purple Navigation Bar and select "Search Materials." From there, go to "Legal Materials Type" and scroll down to "Topical Introductions" to select one of our 90+ different topics. Each topic is listed in alphabetical order. | Policy | |||
| OH - Exotic Pets - 901:1-17-12 Non-domestic animals | Ohio Admin. Code § 901:1-17-12 | OH ADC 901:1-17-12 | Under this Ohio regulation, no non-domestic animal shall be imported into the state of Ohio unless accompanied by a permit issued prior to entry and certificate of veterinary inspection, is free of evidence of any contagious or infectious diseases or parasites harmful to humans or animals, and is in full compliance with all state and federal agencies rules and regulations. The specific disease requirements listed in the remainder of the rule concern only animals such as Cervidae (deer, moose, etc.), Bovidae (antelope, wild cattle, etc.), Suidae (sporting and feral swine), Tayassuidae (peccarie), and Psittacine birds. | Administrative | |
| People v. Williams | 15 Cal. App. 5th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017), reh'g denied (Sept. 20, 2017) | 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) | In this case, defendants were convicted of felony dog fighting and felony animal cruelty. On appeal, defendants sought to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the search warrant that led to their convictions. Police officers responding to a report of a thin, loose, horse near the defendants' home entered the property in order to make reasonable attempts to secure the loose horse and determine if there was a suitable corral on the property. The officers knew there had been prior calls to the property in response to reported concerns about the conditions of horses and pit bulls on the property. Further, one officer heard puppies barking inside the home when she knocked on the door trying to contact defendants, and another officer heard a dog whining from inside the garage. There were strong odors of excessive fecal matter reasonably associated with unhealthful housing conditions. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to be concerned there was a dog in distress inside the garage and possibly in need of immediate aid, and the court found there was nothing unreasonable about one officer standing on the front driveway and simply looking through the broken window in the garage door to determine whether the dog he heard making a whining bark was in genuine distress. Nor was it unreasonable for the officers to then proceed to the back yard after having looked in the garage. As a result, the court ruled that the information the officers had justified the issuance of the search warrant, and thus the order denying the motion to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the warrant was affirmed. The defendants' judgments of conviction were also affirmed. | Case | |
| NY - Sharks - Article 13. Marine and Coastal Resources. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 13-0338 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 13-0338 | This New York law prohibits the practice known as "shark finning." The section provides that no person shall possess shark fins in the marine and coastal district unless the requisite shark carcass is also possessed. It defines "finning" as "the removal of a fin, other than the caudal fin, from a shark and not retaining the remainder of the shark's carcass." | Statute |