Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO - Hunting - Willful Destruction of Wildlife | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-117 | CO ST § 33-6-117 | Colorado has a unique statute specific to poaching for the purpose of acquiring parts or "trophies" from an animal with the intent of abandoning the carcass, or even soliciting someone else to do so. Taking or hunting big game, eagles, or endangered species with this intent results in a felony. The intent of the law is stated "to protect the wildlife from wanton, ruthless, or wasteful destruction or mutilation for their heads, hides, claws, teeth, antlers, horns, internal organs, or feathers." | Statute | |
| ARFF, Inc. v. Siegel | 867 So.2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) | 29 Fla. L. Weekly D355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) |
Resort developer and president of an animal performance company received an injunction against an animal rights group limiting their ability to both picket the resort and distribute pamphlets claiming that the big cats were abused. Appellate court reversed, finding that the picketing regulations burdened more speech than necessary and that the restriction on distributing pamphlets was a prior restraint not justified by a compelling state interest. |
Case | |
| Jackson v. Georgalos | 133 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) | 2015 WL 7269769 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2015) | Plaintiff appealed an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The personal injury action arises from an incident where defendants' dog, who was barking at the time, jumped on the screen door causing the door to open, whereupon the dog ran out of the house. When the plaintiff turned to get away from the dog, her ankle twisted, causing her to fall on the steps and become injured. To recover in New York on such an action, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or a person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities. The court held that plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was aware of the dog's alleged propensity to run out of the house and chase after people. Defendants' motion summary judgment and dismissal was affirmed. | Case | |
| PA - Permits - Subchapter M. Exotic Wildlife Dealer | 58 PA ADC §147 .241 - 246 | 58 Pa. Code § 147.241 - 246 | These Pennsylvania regulations relate to the housing and care of exotic wildlife and public protection from wildlife that is being held or transported by exotic wildlife dealers. Under the regulations, it is unlawful to keep exotic wildlife in confinement in an unsanitary or unsafe condition, or in a manner which results in maltreatment, mistreatment or neglect. The regulations outline requirements for housing, cage construction, food and water provision, waste removal. and drainage. | Administrative | |
| SD - Fur - Chapter 40-35. Domesticated Fur-Bearing Animals. | S D C L § 40-35-1 to 6 | SD ST § 40-35-1 to 6 | These South Dakota statutes pertain to domesticated fur-bearing animals. These animals are subject to private ownership, and documentation is required to possess live fur-bearing animals. Products made from domestic furbearers are considered to be agricultural products and breeding such animals, or marketing the products, is an agricultural pursuit subject to the Department of Agriculture. | Statute | |
| FL - Sterilization - Chapter 823. Public Nuisances | West's F. S. A. § 823.15 | FL ST § 823.15 | This Florida law declares that it is the public policy of the state that every feasible means be used to reduce the incidence of birth of unneeded and unwanted puppies and kittens. In furtherance of this policy, provision shall be made for the sterilization of all dogs and cats sold or released for adoption from any public or private animal shelter or animal control agency by either providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarian before relinquishing custody of the animal or entering into a written agreement with the adopter or purchaser guaranteeing that sterilization will be performed within 30 days or prior to sexual maturity. All costs of sterilization pursuant to this section shall be paid by the prospective adopter unless otherwise provided for by ordinance of the local governing body or provided for by the humane society governing body. | Statute | |
| NH - Exotic Pets, Wildlife - Chapter 207. Import, Possession, or Release of Wildlife. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 207:14 - 207:15-a | NH ST § 207:14 - 207:15-a | This New Hampshire section states that no person shall import, possess, sell, exhibit, or release any live marine species or wildlife, or the eggs or progeny thereof, without first obtaining a permit from the executive director except as otherwise permitted. The executive director has the authority to determine the time period and any other conditions governing the issuance of such permit. Any wildlife release or imported contrary to these provisions are subject to seizure. | Statute | |
| CA - Veterinary - Chapter 11. Veterinary Medicine. | West's Ann. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 4800 - 4920_8 | CA BUS & PROF § 4800 - 4920.8 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| Reams v. Irvin | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 906005 (N.D.Ga.) | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25350 |
The plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C 1983 action against police officers she claimed violated her civil rights under the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when they impounded 46 of her horses on suspicion of animal abuse. Upon a summary judgement motion by the defendants, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. Responding to the Fourth Amendment claim in particular, the court held that an old dairy barn, which was being used to hide dead horses, was neither within the curtilage of the home nor protected by the Fourth Amendment. After applying the Dunn factors, the court determined that the barns distance of 150 yards from the dwelling on the farm, its use for the commercial production of dairy products, its lacks of enclosure, and its missing doors all militated against it being part of the curtilage of the home and it did not enjoy Fourth Amendment privacy protection. |
Case | |
| Metal dirty cage with a night monkey in it. | Slideshow Images |