Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Stevens | 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) | 176 L.Ed.2d 435, 78 USLW 4267, 38 Media L. Rep. 1577, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4819, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5779, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 221 |
Defendant was convicted of violating statute prohibiting the commercial creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional for being substantially overbroad: it did not require the depicted conduct to be cruel, extended to depictions of conduct that were only illegal in the State in which the creation, sale, or possession occurred, and because the exceptions clause did not substantially narrow the statute's reach. (2011 note: 18 U.S.C. § 48 was amended following this ruling in late 2010). |
Case |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 12 |
SumÁrio
Editorial | 9
|
Policy | ||
| Nichols v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. | 407 F.Supp.2d 979 (S.D.Ill.,2006) |
A customer brought an action against Lowe's home improvement store to recover for injury sustained when a "wild bird" flew into the back of her head while she was shopping in the gardening area. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in making the premises safe and that the defendant did not warn customers that the birds were a dangerous condition on the premises. In granting the owner's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the store owner did not owe customer a duty under Illinois law to protect her from wild bird attack since attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Further, the store owner was not the "owner" or "keeper" of a "wild bird" within meaning of Illinois Animal Control Act. |
Case | |
| State v. Schuler (Unpublished) | 1997 WL 76337 (Unpub. Minn. 1997) |
This Minnesota lawsuit arose from the enforcement of a Little Canada ordinance prohibiting the keeping of more than three adult dogs in any residential dwelling within the city's residentially zoned districts. In reviewing a challenge to the law, the court first noted that a city's police power allows it both to regulate the keeping of animals, and to define nuisances and provide for their abatement. Further, municipal ordinances are presumptively constitutional and the burden rests on the party challenging it. Here, Schuler failed to offer evidence that regulating the number of dogs per household was unrelated to controlling the problems of dog noise and odor as they affect the health and general welfare of the community. |
Case | |
| In re: WILLIAM JOSEPH VERGIS | 55 Agric. Dec. 148 (1996) | 1996 WL 189726 (U.S.D.A.) | Except as provided in 9 CFR § 2.11, neither Animal Welfare Act (7 USCS §§ 2131 et seq.) nor regulations issued under Act specifically provide for order prohibiting person who is unlicensed from obtaining license; nevertheless, Act provides that Secretary has general authority to promulgate such "orders," as well as such rules and regulations, as may be necessary to effectuate purposes of Act (7 USCS § 2151), which means that Secretary does have power to order that unlicensed person who violates Act, or regulations or standards under Act, be barred from licensure. | Case |
| England - Farm animals - Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 | 2007 No. 2078 | These Regulations set minimum welfare standards for farm animals generally whilst kept and reared on a farm. Some more specific provisions address laying hens, calves confined for rearing and fattening, cattle, pigs, boars, sows, piglets and rabbits. These 2007 Regulations repeal the 2000 Regulations, and also repeal the 2002 and 2003 Regulation Amendments. | Statute | |
| CT - Research animals - § 10a-150e. Offering for adoption of cat or dog used for conducting research or testing | C.G.S.A. § 10a-150e | CT ST § 10a-150e | This Connecticut law (effective 2016) states that an institute of higher education must offer for adoption by an animal adoption or animal rescue organization any cat or dog that that was subject to research or testing after the completion of any such research or testing and the dog or cat is no longer needed. | Statute |
| WA - Trespass - CHAPTER 16.04. TRESPASS OF ANIMALS-GENERAL | West's RCWA 16.04.005 - 100 | WA ST 16.04.005 - 100 | These Washington statutes pertain to trespassing livestock animals. They provide for liability of owners for damage caused by such animals.There are also notification requirements to owners of trespassing animals. | Statute |
| VT - Brattleboro - Chapter 3: Animals and Fowl (Article 2: Dogs, Wolf-Hybrids) | Brattleboro, Vermont Code of Ordinances, Article 2: Dogs, Wolf-Hybrids, §§ 3-27 to 3-34 |
In Brattleboro, Vermont, owners or keepers of assistance dogs are exempt from the license surcharge fee, but are still required to pay a basic license fee plus a fee for the statewide rabies program. When obtaining a license, owners or keepers of assistance dogs must provide documentation of their assistance dog’s training. The following ordinances also indicate which dogs are eligible as assistance dogs. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Spreitz | 945 P.2d 1260 (1997) | 190 Ariz. 129 (1997) |
The court held that admission of photographs of the victim was harmless because based on the overwhelming evidence against defendant, the jury would have found him guilty without the photographs. |
Case |