Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 635. Department of Fish and Wildlife. | OR ADC 635-044-0200 - 635-044-0310 | OAR 635-044-0200 - 635-044-0310 (repealed 2015) | [Note: repealed 2015] Under this set of Oregon regulations, any person desiring to hold any bird, mammal, amphibian or reptile for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation must first obtain a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The requirements and conditions to obtain a permit is also provided. In addition to an Oregon Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit, persons possessing this permit must also obtain a federal permit for species protected by federal law and provide a copy of the current valid federal permit to the Department. Other sections provide prohibited species under the permit and facility requirements. | Administrative | |
| People v. Richardson | 155 A.D.3d 1595, 66 N.Y.S.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017), leave to appeal denied, 30 N.Y.3d 1119 (2018) | 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 07857, 2017 WL 5183187 | In this New York case, defendant appeals from a three-county felony animal fighting conviction. Defendant's dog fighting activities came to light when police were dispatched to defendant's residence after defendant's wife reported a burglary in progress. Upon entry by consent, police found, in plain view, a wounded dog in a cage, several modified treadmills for use by dogs, blood on a water heater, and apparent dogfighting paraphernalia. After seeking a search warrant, the items were photographed and other evidence (supplements, training sticks, etc.) was collected. On appeal, the court rejected defendant's argument that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress all of the physical evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree. The court noted that the dogfighting paraphernalia were observed in plain view by responding policy officers. Additionally, police officers remaining at the house after the protective sweep to prevent the destruction of evidence while the search warrant was issued did not render the search unlawful. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant intended to engage in dogfighting and that the dogs were deprived of medical treatment. In addition to the paraphernalia and collection of literature on dogfighting, defendant's dogs had extensive scarring and healing consistent with dogfighting and inconsistent with defendant's proffered "cat-scratch" and "broken window" explanations. Defendant's convictions and judgment of sentence were affirmed. | Case | |
| American Horse Protection Ass'n, Inc. v. Lyng | 681 F.Supp. 949 (D.D.C.,1988) |
This case resulted from a remand by the Court of Appeals after the USDA denied the plaintiff's application for additional rulemaking for the Horse Protection Act to expressly prohibit the use of ten ounce chains and padded shoes in the training of show horses. The use of these materials, argues plaintiff, constitutes soring (the act of deliberately injuring a horse's hooves to obtain a particular type of gait prized at certain horse shows. The object of soring is to cause a horse to suffer pain as its feet touch the ground). This Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In doing so, it directed the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to institute rulemaking procedures concerning the use of action devices on show horses. The Court further held that the existing regulations are contrary to law and that the Secretary ignored his mandate from Congress under the Horse Protection Act. |
Case | ||
| OR - Animal Definitions - Chapter 87. Statutory Liens. Liens Generally. 87.142. Definitions | O. R. S. § 87.142 | This is Oregon's statutory definitions for Animal Statutes. | Statute | ||
| DC - Assistance Animals - Chapter 20A. Pet Ownership Restriction in Assisted Housing. | DC Code § 8-2031 - § 8-2035; DC CODE § 7-1002, 1006, 1009; DC CODE § 8-1804 | DC ST § § 8-2031 - § 8-2035; DC ST § 7-1002, 1006, 1009; DC ST § 8-1804 | The owner or operator of locally assisted housing accommodations for elderly or disabled people may not prevent a tenant from keeping common household pets. However, an owner or operator may require the removal of pets whose conduct or condition constitutes a threat or nuisance to the health or safety of the other occupants. A violation is a civil infraction that may result in a fine of up to $300. | Statute | |
| US - Tuna Fishing - Legislative History of the MMPA (1981) | 1981 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1458 |
This legislative history outlines the background and analysis of the 1981 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Of particular note is the discussion related to the "zero mortality" goal for dolphins in the tuna fishing industry. |
Statute | ||
| Rosche v. Wayne Feed Div. Continental Grain Co. | 447 N.W.2d 94 (1989) | 152 Wis.2d 78 (1989) |
Pig breeder sought damages from feed manufacturer after pigs got sick, died, or became sterile after eating feed. The Court of Appeals held that jury should have been instructed that basic measure of damages for dead and injured livestock was based on market value of affected animals and did not include separate award for unborn litters. Failure to give proper instruction was prejudicial error that required a new trial on the issue of damages. |
Case | |
| Commonwealth v. Gardner | 74 Pa. D. & C. 539 (Pa. 1950) |
In this Pennsylvania case, a new resident moved next door to a woman who had been operating a kennel for years. He then complained to the borough council which then amended an ordinance such that the keeping of more than six dogs over six months of age was made a nuisance per se, illegal and a violation of the ordinance. The court held that it did not believe that the borough council or the court had the power or the authority to determine that more than a certain number is a nuisance per se, and less than that number is a nuisance only upon proof of the same being a nuisance. "In other words, it is our opinion that the borough council, in the exercise of its police power may not unreasonably and arbitrarily prohibit things which were not nuisances at common law, and their declaration in an ordinance that a thing is a public nuisance does not make it so, if it is not a nuisance in fact . . ." |
Case | ||
| IA - Hunting - 481A.125A. Remote control or internet hunting--criminal and civil penalties | I.C.A. § 481A.125A | IA ST § 481A.125A | This Iowa law prohibits “remote control or internet hunting." This involves the acts of offering such services for sale as well as taking, or assisting in the take of a wild animal kept on a hunting preserve by remote control or internet hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a serious misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this section is punishable as a class “D” felony. | Statute | |
| CA - Slaughter - § 597.3. Live animal markets | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.3 | CA PENAL § 597.3 | This California statute regulates live animal markets. Operators must ensure that no animal (frogs, turtles, and birds, but not poultry) sold for the purpose of human consumption) is cut, dismembered, butchered, or de-feathered while still alive. Operators must also provide that no animals are confined in such a way that could case injury, starvation, dehydration, or suffocation. Violation may result in a warning for the first offense and an infraction for a second offense. | Statute |